Total visitors right now: 148

Logged-in members:

Dragonfly

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

The Communique is Out (Updated, with Schedule)

Monday, February 19, 2007 • 3:39 pm

ACNS version is here.


The Communiqué
Of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam

19th February 2007

1. We, the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, gathered for mutual consultation and prayer at Dar es Salaam between 15th and 19th February 2007 at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and as guests of the Primate of Tanzania, Archbishop Donald Leo Mtetemela. The meeting convened in an atmosphere of mutual graciousness as the Primates sought together to seek the will of God for the future life of the Communion. We are grateful for the warm hospitality and generosity of Archbishop Donald and his Church members, many of whom have worked hard to ensure that our visit has been pleasant and comfortable, including our travel to Zanzibar on the Sunday.

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed to our number fourteen new primates, and on the Wednesday before our meeting started, he led the new primates in an afternoon of discussion about their role. We give thanks for the ministry of those primates who have completed their term of office.

3. Over these days, we have also spent time in prayer and Bible Study, and reflected upon the wide range of mission and service undertaken across the Communion. While the tensions that we face as a Communion commanded our attention, the extensive discipleship of Anglicans across the world reminds us of our first task to respond to God’s call in Christ. We are grateful for the sustaining prayer which has been offered across the Communion as we meet.

4. On Sunday 18th February, we travelled to the island of Zanzibar, where we joined a celebration of the Holy Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral, built on the site of the old slave market. The Archbishop of Canterbury preached, and commemorated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom, which had begun a process that led to the abolition of the slave market in Zanzibar ninety years later. At that service, the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted Mrs Hellen Wangusa as the new Anglican Observer at the United Nations. We warmly welcome Hellen to her post.

5. We welcomed the presence of the President of Zanzibar at lunch on Sunday, and the opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet with the President of Tanzania in the course of the meeting.

The Millennium Development Goals

6. We were delighted to hear from Mrs Wangusa about her vision for her post of Anglican Observer at the United Nations. She also spoke to us about the World Millennium Development Goals, while Archbishop Ndungane also spoke to us as Chair of the Task Team on Poverty and Trade, and the forthcoming conference on Towards Effective Anglican Mission in South Africa next month. We were inspired and challenged by these presentations.

Theological Education in the Anglican Communion

7. We also heard a report from Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables and Mrs Clare Amos on the work of the Primates’ Working Party on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion. The group has focussed on developing “grids” which set out the appropriate educational and developmental targets which can be applied in the education of those in ministry in the life of the Church. We warmly commend the work which the group is doing, especially on the work which reminds us that the role of the bishop is to enable the theological education of the clergy and laity of the diocese. We also welcome the scheme that the group has developed for the distribution of basic theological texts to our theological colleges across the world, the preparations for the Anglican Way Consultation in Singapore in May this year, and the appointment of three Regional Associates to work with the group. The primates affirmed the work of the Group, and urged study and reception of its work in the life of the Communion.

The Hermeneutics Project

8. We agreed to proceed with a worldwide study of hermeneutics (the methods of interpreting scripture). The primates have joined the Joint Standing Committee in asking the Anglican Communion Office to develop options for carrying the study forward following the Lambeth Conference in 2008. A report will be presented to the Joint Standing Committee next year.

Following through the Windsor Report

9. Since the controversial events of 2003, we have faced the reality of increased tension in the life of the Anglican Communion – tension so deep that the fabric of our common life together has been torn. The Windsor Report of 2004 described the Communion as suffering from an “illness”. This “illness” arises from a breakdown in the trust and mutual recognition of one another as faithful disciples of Christ, which should be among the first fruits of our Communion in Christ with one another.

10. The Windsor Report identified two threats to our common life: first, certain developments in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada which challenged the standard of teaching on human sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; and second, interventions in the life of those Provinces which arose as reactions to the urgent pastoral needs that certain primates perceived. The Windsor Report did not see a “moral equivalence” between these events, since the cross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of Anglicans in the face of innovation. Nevertheless both innovation and intervention are central factors placing strains on our common life. The Windsor Report recognised this (TWR Section D) and invited the Instruments of Communion to call for a moratorium of such actions .

11. What has been quite clear throughout this period is that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates the traditional teaching of the Christian Church that “in view of the teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”, and applies this to several areas which are discussed further below. The Primates have reaffirmed this teaching in all their recent meetings , and indicated how a change in the formal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the standard upheld by the Communion as a whole.

12. At our last meeting in Dromantine, the primates called for certain actions to address the situation in our common life, and to address those challenges to the teaching of the Lambeth Resolution which had been raised by recent developments. Now in Dar es Salaam, we have had to give attention to the progress that has been made.
The Listening Process

13. The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, committed the Provinces “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and called “all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”. The initiation of this process of listening was requested formally by the Primates at Dromantine and commissioned by ACC-13. We received a report from Canon Philip Groves, the Facilitator of the Listening Process, on the progress of his work. We wish to affirm this work in collating various research studies, statements and other material from the Provinces. We look forward to this material being made more fully available across the Communion for study and reflection, and to the preparation of material to assist the bishops at 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The Panel of Reference

14. We are grateful to the retired Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley for being with us to update us on the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference. This was established by the Archbishop in response to the request of the Primates at Dromantine “to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches” for “groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces” . Archbishop Peter informed us of the careful work which this Panel undertakes on our behalf, although he pointed to the difficulty of the work with which it has been charged arising from the conflicted and polarised situations which the Panel must address on the basis of the slender resources which can be given to the work. We were grateful for his report, and for the work so far undertaken by the Panel.

The Anglican Covenant

15. Archbishop Drexel Gomez reported to us on the work of the Covenant Design Group. The Group met in Nassau last month, and has made substantial progress. We commend the Report of the Covenant Design Group for study and urge the Provinces to submit an initial response to the draft through the Anglican Communion Office by the end of 2007. In the meantime, we hope that the Anglican Communion Office will move in the near future to the publication of the minutes of the discussion that we have had, together with the minutes of the Joint Standing Committee’s discussion, so that some of the ideas and reflection that have already begun to emerge might assist and stimulate reflection throughout the Communion.

16. The proposal is that a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and contributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will be presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the Provinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any definitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical processes of the Provinces.

The Episcopal Church

17. At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.

18. In 2005 the Primates asked The Episcopal Church to consider specific requests made by the Windsor Report . On the first day of our meeting, we were joined by the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council as we considered the responses of the 75th General Convention. This is the first time that we have been joined by the Standing Committee at a Primates’ Meeting, and we welcome and commend the spirit of closer co-operation between the Instruments of Communion.

19. We are grateful for the comprehensive and clear report commissioned by the Joint Standing Committee. We heard from the Presiding Bishop and three other bishops representing different perspectives within The Episcopal Church. Each spoke passionately about their understanding of the problems which The Episcopal Church faces, and possible ways forward. Each of the four, in their own way, looked to the Primates to assist The Episcopal Church. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us on this occasion to hear directly this range of views.

20. We believe several factors must be faced together. First, the Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we express our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention.

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003,
“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”.

23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.

24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

25. It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11). These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt the Windsor proposals in full. They desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican Communion. They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true. We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.

26. The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.

27. A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops have indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience to accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to consider making provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected.

28. These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making presentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates might contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church and more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

The Future

29. We believe that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the Anglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to re-establish our interdependent life. By making explicit what Anglicans mean by the “bonds of affection” and securing the commitment of each Province to those bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and enhanced.

30. However, an interim response is required in the period until the Covenant is secured. For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in the interim, it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and comprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.

31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.

33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions.

34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously.

35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

Wider Application

36. The primates recognise that such pastoral needs as those considered here are not limited to The Episcopal Church alone. Nor do such pastoral needs arise only in relation to issues of human sexuality. The primates believe that until a covenant for the Anglican Communion is secured, it may be appropriate for the Instruments of Communion to request the use of this or a similar scheme in other contexts should urgent pastoral needs arise.

Conclusion

37. Throughout this meeting, the primates have worked and prayed for the healing and unity of the Anglican Communion. We also pray that the Anglican Communion may be renewed in its discipleship and mission in proclaiming the Gospel. We recognise that we have been wrestling with demanding and difficult issues and we commend the results of our deliberations to the prayers of the people. We do not underestimate the difficulties and heart-searching that our proposals will cause, but we believe that commitment to the ways forward which we propose can bring healing and reconciliation across the Communion.

Notes

1. Namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.

2. Cf The Windsor Report and the Statement of the Primates at Dromantine.

3. Gramado, May 2003; Lambeth, October 2003; Dromantine, February 2005.

4. Dromantine Statement, paragraph 15.

5. The Episcopal Church is the name adopted by the Church formerly known as The Episcopal Church (USA). The Province operates across a number of nations, and decided that it was more true to its international nature not to use thedesignation USA. It should not be confused with those other Provinces and Churches of the Anglican Communion which share the name “Episcopal Church”.

6. (1) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. (TWR §134)
(3) we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. (TWR §144)
A fourth request (TWR §135) was discharged by the presentation of The Episcopal Church made at ACC-13 in Nottingham, UK, in 2005.

6. Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes; Bishop Christopher Epting, Deputy for Ecumenical Affairs in The Episcopal Church; Bishop Bruce McPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, President of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, and a member of the “Camp Allen” bishops.

7. Set out and discussed in the Report of the Communion Sub-Group presented at the Meeting.

The Key Recommendations of the Primates

Foundations

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to:

  • affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);
  • set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
  • encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
  • respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole;
  • respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church.

In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.

A Pastoral Council

  • The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
  • The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below to
    • negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the Primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003 [1];
    • authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme;
    • assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;
    • liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those parishes within the scheme;
    • facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion (TWR, §156);
    • advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;
    • monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;
    • consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;
    • take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the Primates.

A Pastoral Scheme

  * We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
  * We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters[2] . We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
  * We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.

On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that

  * the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” [3], or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
  * in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
  * the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.

We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.

Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.

On Clarifying the Response to Windsor

The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made [4]. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses.

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

On property disputes

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

Appendix One

“The Camp Allen Principles”

The commitments expressed in the letter of 22nd September 2006 were:

  * an acceptance of Lambeth 1998 Res. I.10 as expressing, on its given topic, the mind of the Communion to which we subject our own teaching and discipline;
  * an acceptance of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates at Dromantine, as outlining the Communion’s “way forward” for our own church’s reconciliation and witness within the Communion;
  * a personal acceptance by each of us of the particular recommendations made by the Windsor Report to ECUSA, and a pledge to comply with them;
  * a clear sense that General Convention 2006 did not adequately respond to the requests made of ECUSA by the Communion through the Windsor Report;
  * a clear belief that we faithfully represent ECUSA in accordance with this church’s Constitution and Canons, as properly interpreted by the Scripture and our historic faith and discipline;
  * a desire to provide a common witness through which faithful Anglican Episcopalians committed to our Communion life might join together for the renewal of our church and the furtherance of the mission of Christ Jesus.

The principles expressed in the letter of 11th January 2007 were:

1. It is our hope that you will explicitly recognize that we are in full communion with you in order to maintain the integrity of our ministries within our dioceses and the larger Church.
2. We are prepared, among other things, to work with the Primates and with others in our American context to make provision for the varying needs of individuals, congregations, dioceses and clergy to continue to exercise their ministries as the Covenant process unfolds. This includes the needs of those seeking primatial ministry from outside the United States, those dioceses and parishes unable to accept the ordination of women, and congregations which sense they can no longer be inside the Episcopal Church.
3. We are prepared to offer oversight, with the agreement of the local bishop, of congregations in dioceses whose bishops are not fully supportive of Communion teaching and discipline.
4. We are prepared to offer oversight to congregations who are currently under foreign jurisdictions in consultation with the bishops and Primates involved.
5. Finally, we respectfully request that the Primates address the issue of congregations within our dioceses seeking oversight in foreign jurisdictions. We are Communion-committed bishops and find the option of turning to foreign oversight presents anomalies which weaken our own diocesan familieis and places strains on the Communion as a whole.

Notes:

1. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates (Lambeth, October 2003)

2. Namely, a letter of 22nd September 2006 to the Archbishop of Canterbury and a further letter of 11th 2007 to the Primates setting out a number of commitments and proposals. These commitments and principles are colloquially known as “the Camp Allen principles”. (see Appendix One)
3. As set out in Appendix One.

4. Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another. The Communion Sub-Group added the comment: “These words were not lightly offered, and should not be lighted received.”


346 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

It’s empty.

[1] Posted by albion on 02-19-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

I guess anything of substance is in the “Schedule”?  Is that out yet?

[2] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

“we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations.  We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement.”

Where are they?

[3] Posted by Scott K on 02-19-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

It sounds like we just continue what we were doing before this meeting

[4] Posted by Craig Stephans on 02-19-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

Where is the schedule?

[5] Posted by Brad Drell on 02-19-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

sheesh…just when you think you can’t ingest any more fudge, what do they feed you?

[6] Posted by Puritan Souls on 02-19-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

Wow!  Pretty meaty at the end…starting around point #31.  Is the “schedule” of suggestions available?

[7] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

“35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. “

What’s in the schedule?

[8] Posted by Paul B on 02-19-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

It’s honest. I am encouraged and will take time to read it carefully.

A point of clarification - has the Schedule mentioned in paragraph 35 been published?

[9] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

The Global South signed this?!?!

[10] Posted by allergic_to_fudge on 02-19-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

This is full of contradictions, but ++Akinola did get his say—that should please some, as it had seemed he might not get any say at all.
Much disagreement is acknowledged, and hard feelings all-round, but nothing important is resolved.
More chaos, and much worse I fear, to come.

[11] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

As I was reading, I was thinking to myself, “I bet by the time I finish reading this, Brad Drell will have asked ‘Where is the schedule?’”  And you know what?  I was right!

[12] Posted by SCVJefe on 02-19-2007 at 04:52 PM • top

I don’t think I’m in position to know what this means until I read the “schedule.”

[13] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 04:52 PM • top

Worth waiting all day to read!  Whoo-hoo!

[14] Posted by James Manley on 02-19-2007 at 04:53 PM • top

This is much much clearer and more forceful than I had expected.

There is much here.  I will have to digest further and reflect.

[15] Posted by Sarah on 02-19-2007 at 04:53 PM • top

Careful—Derek the Anglican notes reference to a Schedule and Recommendations. Those are not out yet, it seems, and who knows what is in it. You might have spoken too soon….

[16] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 04:54 PM • top

the discipline? where’s the discipline?

[17] Posted by AhKong2 on 02-19-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

Good news in this

1. TEC is out of compliance with Windsor/Dromantine
2.  Interventions will continue until assurance of pastoral provision is given (and accepted)
3.  TEC must commit itself to Windsor/Dromantine
4.  There will probably be a “special” province. (I, too, want to see what is in The Schedule {queue dramatic chord}

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[18] Posted by Philip Snyder on 02-19-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

Well, the “Schedule” looms large…we need to see that.
All in all, a much more sober and realistic document than the earlier thing on Windsor compliance.  Obviously, I would use harsher language in describing the way GC puts up wordy smoke screens for all kinds of innovation and apostasy…but this is an Anglican document and has the usual reserve.

[19] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-19-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

<blockqoute> A point of clarification - has the Schedule mentioned in paragraph 35 been published? </blockquote>


No—that’s being drafted right now by a crack team consisting of Rowan Williams, Jefferts-Schori, Ken Kearon, Ndungane, Louie Crew, and Bernard Malango—with the final text to be decided by majority vote.

[20] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 02-19-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

The only timeframe I picked up on was that the proposed Covenant will be discussed at Lambeth—presumably meaning 2008.  Which will then have to be voted on by Gen’l Convention.

[21] Posted by Puritan Souls on 02-19-2007 at 04:55 PM • top

I look forward to analysis and some development of strategy going forward…in the short term, what do we do?

[22] Posted by johnp on 02-19-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

Where is the schedule to the statement that offers the recommendations.  Only when we see those will this become clear.

[23] Posted by julia on 02-19-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

Yes, there may even be a province under a vicar.

[24] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

This document MUST have been written by a committee, because I read it to say two *very* different thing at the same time. confused

[25] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-19-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

Looking for the schedule, do not have it yet

[26] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 04:57 PM • top

We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

This sounds like a move towards the temporary appointment of a conservative ECUSA bishop to serve as an alternative primate until the Covenant can be ratified. If this is the case, it’s the most we could have hoped for.

...waiting for the Schedule…

[27] Posted by Dave on 02-19-2007 at 04:58 PM • top

Is the news conference starting soon or are they still working on the Schedule?

[28] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 04:58 PM • top

Odds are:
you get a province under a primatial vicar, say ++Akinola, such that litigation against those under its authority counts against the bonds of affection of the Communion.

[29] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 04:58 PM • top

And should we pronounce it “shed-jewel” or “skedgle”?

[30] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-19-2007 at 04:58 PM • top

This seems a very diplomatic way of saying we agree to disagree and we’re going to put off talking about the substantial details until later.

[31] Posted by Bill in Ottawa on 02-19-2007 at 04:59 PM • top

But, the primatial vicar must answer to TEC.

[32] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 04:59 PM • top

Para 33?

Ha!

[33] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 02-19-2007 at 04:59 PM • top

I hate to say I told you so but I will.  It may be somewhat ambiguous but it should shut down law suits and give ECUSA much heartache.  Based upon a quick reading it allows for the Network to step up and frankly I believe it is time that happened.  I still want to read the schedule.

[34] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 05:00 PM • top

Sorry but since we don’t have the schedule I see no reason to talk about “odds” . . .

It’s anybody’s guess . . .

[35] Posted by Sarah on 02-19-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

“24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.”

Wow.  That’s a punch in the gut, if you ask me, that will get KJS’ attention.

[36] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-19-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

Where’s the Schedule of recommendations that Paragraph 35 mentions?  Is the negotiation over what to include still going on?  It is troubling that the contents of this schedule are “recommendations” and not decisions.

[37] Posted by Peter M. Vermigli on 02-19-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

I don’t mean to be a party pooper, but this isn’t on ACNS and being an academic I am dying for a primary source.  I think the schedule-if it really exists, will have ACI written all over it.

[38] Posted by BCP28 on 02-19-2007 at 05:02 PM • top

It seems to this amateur observer that all the anti-intervention language (and the fact that the GS primates were willing to sign on to it) indicates that the Communion is rejecting a belief-based structure, as opposed to the traditional understanding that there can only be one authority within a particular geographic area (n/w/s the Episcopal parishes in Europe), at least in the long run.

In the end, that could be good for reasserters, but only if you think it’s really possible that the Covenant has legs.

[39] Posted by SCVJefe on 02-19-2007 at 05:02 PM • top

If Archbishop Akinola signed this all I can say is “You have one leg in Nigeria and one leg in the Anglican Comunion. You must make up your mind.”

[40] Posted by Bill McGovern on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

I hate to say I told you so but I will.

Can we create a “no gloating” zone too?  wink

[41] Posted by Teacozy on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

This could have been much, much worse, given the news we had had so far.  But has anyone asked: where is the schedule?

[42] Posted by Scott K on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

Hey; I’m just wondering.  Has anybody asked yet “where is the schedule?”

[43] Posted by more martha than mary on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

WG;
Not too much of a punch—KJS DID get elected to the Standing Commitee. 
-PS

[44] Posted by Puritan Souls on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

Does anyone know if there really is a finished schedule?

[45] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

’ “We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.”

This sounds like a move towards the temporary appointment of a conservative ECUSA bishop to serve as an alternative primate until the Covenant can be ratified. If this is the case, it’s the most we could have hoped for. ‘

Note it says ‘bishops’, plural.  That’s NOT an alternative primate.  That sounds like a handful, to be chosen (by whom?) from a group that have in common the critical handicaps that they are within ECUSA/TEC, subject to the power and influence of ECUSA/TEC, require the consent of the apostate majority within ECUSA/TEC if they are to be replaced, and generally lack the independence from the ECUSA/TEC province which has necessarily characterised such boundary-crossing rescue missions as AMiA, CANA, and the less-institutionalised efforts of Uganda and the Southern Cone.

[46] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 02-19-2007 at 05:04 PM • top

Yeah, paragraph 33 is a howler.  “The Polity” of TEC is “incoherent” (that word is from the Episcopal Church Foundation), and everything is local option.  There would not have been interventions except for TEC’s inability to police its own.

[47] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-19-2007 at 05:04 PM • top

Over on the t19 backup the elves say that Kendall has not seen the Schedule.

[48] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 05:05 PM • top

“....neither know we what to do, but our eyes are upon Thee….”
Personal note: On Friday the Lord awakened me very early with this phrase running through my mind like a tickertape. I was deeply impressed that I should read the entire “context”....it took a while to find it. It’s II Chron. 20:12. The context describes exactly where we are now. A few pertient passages: “O our God, wilt thou not judge them? for we have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon thee.” (v.12)  “Thus saith the Lord unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s….ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the Lord with you….” (v. 15-17

[49] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 02-19-2007 at 05:05 PM • top

Yes you can teacozy.  Sorry.

[50] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 05:05 PM • top

No surprises here. Seems to be a summary of the various points of view, with reaffirmation of Windsor and a call for closer attention to its detailed requests. The part about provisional scheme for oversight sounds to me like DEPO once more, and appears to rule out “outside” bishops in favor of bishops from within TEC. That has been rejected in the past. Will this be the acceptable compromise? Meanwhile, where is the schedule? (No doubt pronounced “SHedule”)  wink

[51] Posted by TSH+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

It could’ve been worse, a LOT worse. There are parts of this that are good. Will it bear fruit? I really hope so. Looking forward to reading the analyses (once the schedules are out) by people smarter than me.

[52] Posted by Dazzled on 02-19-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

Friends - so far so good, but we need to see the schedule.  It’s kind of like someone offering you a job and telling you the pay and benefits are wonderful, but can’t yet tell you the numbers.
Much better then I was expecting given the rumours, but the schedule is the key.
And Canucks (I am one myself originally), how do you think this will affect General Synod this summer?

[53] Posted by jamesw on 02-19-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

It sounds more like, the sub-committee on the committee to form a committee to oversee the committee on the assembly of a congress to form a senate to answer to the committee of the Parliament on the committee to form a committee to procrastinate has been formed.

[54] Posted by KJC402 on 02-19-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

TSH+, the teeth or lack-therof in this depends on the schedule, which we are trying to obtain

This is, by the way, an accurate and true copy

[55] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

It must have been quite a shoot-out at that OK corral!  But the AC can’t continue to try to please everybody all of the time.  It’s just not going to work!

[56] Posted by Crabby in MD on 02-19-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

Go ahead and gloat a bit; this is pretty good for conservative Anglicans so far if the schedule goes the way the communique seems to point.

[57] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:08 PM • top

1105 on the site right now….Probably at least 1000 strong voices in TEC.  It is a blessing to see you all here, and Sarah…so glad to hear from you!

Praying for the schedule…..

[58] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 05:09 PM • top

Indeed, it looks like the Schedule will suggest that a US bishop with quasi-primatial qualities may be appointed under a scheme adopted by TEC’s House of Bishops. Will there be anything to keep PB Schori from putting her “primatial vicar” plan of a few months ago into effect using the HOB’s and claiming it meets our needs and the “recommendations” of this communique? We will remain part of TEC (indeed, keeping TEC intact is the whole point of the proposed scheme, right?), so this is nothing like a second province. Faithful bishop-elects will still not receive consents, we will still in communion with dioceses that allow SSB’s, etc. This surely doesn’t look like what many folks in Fort Worth were hoping for, I can tell you that! But then, maybe the Schedule will be very specific and not leave us answerable to Schori et al. If so, will TEC’s HOB put it into effect?

[59] Posted by texanglican on 02-19-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

Here is the key to the whole document:

While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

[60] Posted by Brian from T19 on 02-19-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

I remain under-whelmed. downer  Unless the “Schedule” says something starkly different, which I doubt given this bold statement of indecision and inaction, then the Anglican Communion just died.  Lamentation during the season of Lent might be in order.  Yet Easter still comes, just not for the Anglican Communion.  It will be buried in a tomb and the faithful will go into exile.  The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.  Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Farewell Brothers and Sisters.  I now depart.

[61] Posted by Spencer on 02-19-2007 at 05:11 PM • top

Lee Parker,
No offense taken….saying “no-gloating” to myself as much as anyone!

[62] Posted by Teacozy on 02-19-2007 at 05:11 PM • top

“We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.”

This sounds more like a “College of Windsor Bishops” hopefully the Network Bishops enhanced, to me. This is what I was hoping to see as a com.con. My bishop is already doing this.

[63] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:11 PM • top

We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

 
Who is guarding the chicken coop?  The House of Bishops from TEC?

[64] Posted by Greg E. on 02-19-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

I’m just tickled I was the first to ask where the “Schedule” is. grin

Actually the language of this communique pleases me immensely, for the most part.  I’m anxious to see the schedule because that will tell if it means anything.

[65] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

TECusaCorp got slammed.

Big Time.

Anyone who wants to mock the “overacceptance” theory needs to read 20 and 21.

[66] Posted by James Manley on 02-19-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

It seems to hit the mark in several places, but I’ll reserve further judgement until I’ve re-read it, and seen the schedule. 

BTW Pendennis, it’s “shed-yewl”

[67] Posted by Invicta on 02-19-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

#32 - Does this say leave Falls CHurch and Truro alone?

[68] Posted by fh57 on 02-19-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

Any reduced privileges and ‘out of compliance’ status for TEC is the ‘wink, wink’ kind if this statement is correct:  “In a further development unlikely to please the conservatives, Bishop Schori was today elevated to represent the Americas on one of the Church’s most influential executive bodies.  Bishop Schori, 53, was elected to the Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting, the executive body that guides the work of the primates.”

[69] Posted by Theodora on 02-19-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

Matt, I don’t think I mentioned teeth. I’m just interested in the structure being proposed, not whether it will be enforced or not. I’m wondering if something like DEPO by a group of TEC bishops would be acceptable. Apparently, to judge by some comments, it wouldn’t be acceptable to some.
It appears that what we will NOT be seeing is a separate province or a separate primate, unless the schedule is all out of kilter with the Communique.

[70] Posted by TSH+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

Only have time for skimming and limited reading now.  On the one hand, it may be promising;  on the other, it replicates a residual problem:  lack of structure.  In this case, this meeting had too much to cover in the time allotted and the Primates must find some other way to continue working on the obvious differences.  IN particular, clear provision must be made to keep people around while the Covenant is being worked out.  Given that the differences still exist, it is at least honest that they are stated rather than whitewashed or simply ignored. 

How will pastoral provision for the orthodox be provided and how quickly will it be provided.? It must be something more than the Panel of REference.  An orthdox College of Bishops, in light of the document the pope is considering now, together, might cobble together enough to bridge time for a Covenant.

[71] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 02-19-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

#32 - Does this say leave Falls CHurch and Truro alone

Sort of, it does.

[72] Posted by this_day on 02-19-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

News Flash!  Fifteen dioceses have already passed resolutions disassociating themselves from the Communique and have announced plans to impeach Richard Nixon - AGAIN!

[73] Posted by DaveG on 02-19-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

Watch for the schedule. TEC will not be able to abide by the terms of Windsor acceptance. They could barely pass a watered down say nothing resolution. The Communion is demanding total clarity from the US.

[74] Posted by JerryKramer on 02-19-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

I am with Spencer.  It is only encouraging when viewed from the depths of dispair produced by the rest of the weekend.

I believe, and in a couple of cases I know for sure, this will cause new Anglican churches to rethink their strategy, identity and affiliation.  Its time to move on, and this process is dragging everyone down.

[75] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

OK - Cursory reponse - Section 21 sinks the Sub-Group’s report. The Communique says that TEC are very VERY naughty. What is to be done is will be revealed in “the Schedule” and that hasn’t been published yet. Sit tight guys - we could be here all night…

http://www.peter-ould.net/?p=301

[76] Posted by Peter O on 02-19-2007 at 05:15 PM • top

Finally something concrete or just another attempt to delay the inevitable? Perhaps the “schedule” will clarify…

[77] Posted by walkapart on 02-19-2007 at 05:15 PM • top

So, what?

[78] Posted by RoyIII on 02-19-2007 at 05:15 PM • top

How hard TEC gets slammed depends on where the episcopal oversight comes from; the schedule drafters must have noted that putting it outside TEC would virtually guarantee non-compliance. The question then might have been where in TEC? Windsor -bishops sounds like a good guess at this point.

[79] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

This just in!  Bp. Chane and a group of fiteen other Bishops have announced they are disassociating themsleves from the recommendations of the Communique and will proceed with plans to impeach Richard Nixon - AGAIN!

[80] Posted by DaveG on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

Remember….......................

The schedule is AT BEST recommendatory…

[81] Posted by Texas Hold'em on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

Even without the “Schedule,” this ick gives far too much recognition to TEC, an institution with no integrity save Louie Crew’s.  Surely the GS can’t go along with this.  In any case, the Anglican Communion is, by its own failure to act, walking apart from the Holy Catholic Church.  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.  Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

[82] Posted by Andy Figueroa on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

Everyone’s so eager for the schedule, but doesn’t the report say that the schedule will contain RECOMMENDATIONS?

Also, though the report calls upon bishops within TEC to provide emergency oversight, is anything said about possible presentments being brought against said bishops?  Any shot across the bow to TEC saying, “You’d better let this fly”?

[83] Posted by High Church Methodist on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

The Communique and what I guess is the Schedule is up on ACNS now.  Schedule is mixed - think ACI.

[84] Posted by jamesw on 02-19-2007 at 05:16 PM • top

While I am very grateful for the obvious inclusion of the concerns of the orthodox primates who have come to the aid of orthodox Episcopalians, it seems to me on my first read that it still remains that TEC has a free reign to continue to persecute its Biblically faithful members and that, when all is said and done, for the orthodox it is basically every man (and woman) for him/her self. My hope is that the orthodox here in the USA can find the grace to not only depart ECUSA but ban together in a new faithful Anglican fellowship that will one day be recognized by the wider Communion as the only “legit” Anglican body in the USA.  That will take a lot of hard work and patience to accomplish.  But it would be worth it and I believe blessed by the Holy Spirit for a new vigorous and effective witness to America.

[85] Posted by David+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:17 PM • top

David+,
Is there a link, please?  Thank you!

[86] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

Actually, Brian, that’s not the key, that’s just the part *you* like. Let’s wait for the schedule.

[87] Posted by Dazzled on 02-19-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

Thank you STAND FIRM for all of your hard work in reporting and in its timeliness. I’ve been so thankful for this service. I’ve made a small donation via PayPal and wondered if there would be others who would take the time to give even $5.00…if there are over 1,000 people reading this, that would be a small way to thank these folks for this service.

[88] Posted by npanglican + on 02-19-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

CHECK the AC site: Schedule is out now

[89] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

A quick comment: the phrasing used is “no <bold>further</bold> interventions,” which sounds like the wording of the DC and appears not to affect current interventions.

[90] Posted by tired on 02-19-2007 at 05:19 PM • top

Remember how well DEPO worked?

[91] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 05:19 PM • top

The devil, or angel, will be in the details, aka the Schedule.  Here’s to hoping that it will recommend that KJS be put in stocks and pelted with overripe produce until she repents of her heresies.

[92] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-19-2007 at 05:19 PM • top

Hmm; more contradictions in the schedule.

[93] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:20 PM • top

Way better than I thought it would be, but waiting to see the “schedule.”  The GS primates will not abandon us—very thankful for that.  TEC will be given how many more chances to be Windsor compliant??  My guess is this will go on forever.  By the way, they are misusing the word “reconciliation” for those in the body of Christ.  Reconciliation must first come through all believers reconciling themselves to Christ and all that He is, and through that reconciliation comes our reconciliation one to another.  When His truth has been abandoned, no reconciliation is possible in Him.  Just read a good article on this over on Virtue that I recommend. Thanks be to God for all those who stood firm in the “faith once delivered” in that very difficult meeting.

[94] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 02-19-2007 at 05:20 PM • top

OK, just how do paras 20 and 21 end up in the same document, muchless one after the other?

RSB

[95] Posted by R S Bunker on 02-19-2007 at 05:20 PM • top

The Communique’s subtitle: Peace in our times.

[96] Posted by Dan Crawford on 02-19-2007 at 05:21 PM • top

Well the Anglican Communion Burns to a tune fiddled by The Least Reverend Rowan “The Heretic” Williams accompanied by the daughter of Satan Katherine Jefferts-Schori!!!!!!!!! vampire

[97] Posted by revdrrayj on 02-19-2007 at 05:22 PM • top

I think “THE SCHEDULE” is out.  It appears here. 
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

See the section beginning:

The Key Recommendations of the Primates

Foundations

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to:

[98] Posted by The_Elves on 02-19-2007 at 05:22 PM • top

This communique is as murky as it gets.  It sounds like it was written by bureaucrats in the ACO.  It seems worse than useless.

[99] Posted by Randy Muller on 02-19-2007 at 05:22 PM • top

Further to your observation Peter, section 31 is similarly damaging to the sub-group report. Evidently, we’re not the only ones able to spot a “fudge”...

[100] Posted by walkapart on 02-19-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

So Truro and Falls Church and the other parishes have left the Diocese of Virginia, and agreed to affiliate with CANA.  Does that constitute cross-boundary intervention?  There are free standing new plants all over the nation affiliating with AMiA or Bolivia or such—are they also cross boundary interventions?  Is some Schedule going to shut down the litigation pending in New York State and in Virginia and in California?  How will any vicar affect, for instance, the good folks at Falls Church?

[101] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 02-19-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

I think people are putting *TOO* much emphasis in this schedule. This document itself has contradictions, I bet CANA reads paragraph 32 as to stop law suites & TEC will see paragraph 33 as justification to continue or make Nigeria the bad guy. I think all sides can read this and find something they like and stuff they can’t stand and will work to maximize their pet area like they did with the WR.

[102] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-19-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

Anyone have a link to the schedule?

[103] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-19-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

Oh goodness - please show some restraint.

[104] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 05:24 PM • top

There are no punishment, sanctions, diminished status for TEC - if the article is true that KJS was elected to the standing committee of the Anglican Communion.

[105] Posted by Theodora on 02-19-2007 at 05:24 PM • top

WOW—Schori signed off on all that.

[106] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

Looks like a Panel of Reference, sounds like a Panel of Reference and stinks to high heaven lke Panel of Reference.

[107] Posted by DaveG on 02-19-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

Some good, some bad, a lot inconsistent. What about that schedule?

the (soon to be) formerly Anglican Snarkster

[108] Posted by the snarkster on 02-19-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

The Communique’s subtitle: Peace in our times

Dan how true, English diplomacy at its best.

Oh, where is our Churchill.

[109] Posted by R S Bunker on 02-19-2007 at 05:26 PM • top

Yes there is something in the schedule for everyone, but I am shocked at the seismic shift in our polity that Schori seems to have agreed to.

[110] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:26 PM • top

109 comments, and nobody has blamed David Virtue.  Yet.  wink

[111] Posted by APB on 02-19-2007 at 05:27 PM • top

Ladies and gentlemen, the Schedule is already out.

[112] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:27 PM • top

Remember to read this all with the passion of the typical anglican (not much).  This is a strong statement.  It places the responsibility of the current crisis on ECUSA (I still refuse to say TEC and buy into the double speak) and it’s lack of clear response to the demands of Windsor.  At this point the only disciplinary action that can be exercised is not inviting certain bishops to Lambeth.  I think they will all be invited, so that they can respond to the covenant. 
This is actually much better than I expected this morning.  It’s not everything that I would have wanted, but it’s still strong.  From 21 forward, the report essentially says, “We do not believe that ECUSA has complied.  They are going to have to do more.” 
I would suggest that everyone remember to take a long view of things and not a 3 year or even 10 year view.  If we do, the temptation will be to cut and run.  There is nowhere to run unless you are willing to give up the sacraments or the supremacy of the authority of scripture.  It stinks, but that is where we are today.  Always remember that one of the greatest sins is despair.

[113] Posted by revrj on 02-19-2007 at 05:27 PM • top

We’ve posted the Schedule separately here:
http://t19backup.blogspot.com/2007/02/schedule-attached-to-communique.html

If that helps…

[114] Posted by The_Elves on 02-19-2007 at 05:29 PM • top

schedule

Down near the bottom. look for ‘recommendations’

[115] Posted by Dazzled on 02-19-2007 at 05:29 PM • top

My take on the schedule: The Episcopal Church has been put in receivership.  As is appropriate for a bankrupt organization.

[116] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 02-19-2007 at 05:29 PM • top

Interesting schedule.  What is the significance of Sept 30th 2007?  That is the ‘drop dead’ date by which the HOB/PB must acceed to no SSUs.

[117] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 02-19-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Revrj,
You say: “There is nowhere to run unless you are willing to give up the sacraments or the supremacy of the authority of scripture.”

Have you never heard of the Continuum?

[118] Posted by albion on 02-19-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Even the schedule works in TEC’s favor.  I see this as a victory for TEC, which is how they will “spin” it.  Now TEC just has to talk Duncan, Stanton, and some of the other Network bishops into early retirement and the coup is complete.

[119] Posted by Puritan Souls on 02-19-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Those waiting for the schedule:

see

>www.anglicancommunion.org/</a>

[120] Posted by RoyIII on 02-19-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Pretty good stuff, I’d say.

But, what about aspirants for the diaconate and priesthood who are living in a same-sex union? Or did they not even discuss that?

[121] Posted by Ralph on 02-19-2007 at 05:30 PM • top

Remember the commercial “Wheres the Beef?”.

Let it be clear. There is zero chance that a parish that has fled TEC will come back under any arrangement under TEC.

Zero.

[122] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 05:31 PM • top

Wise words from Binky at CaNN:  “Read this as if you were Mrs. Schori, Louie Crew, or Charles Bennison.”

[123] Posted by APB on 02-19-2007 at 05:31 PM • top

The “Schedule” is available here:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

I’m not so sure about it- but I will read it again.
I’m concerned about recognizing Schori as Presiding Bishop given her theology and I’m concerned about relying on her goodwill—“On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that

the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” [3], or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar. “

On property, the “schedule” seem to be pro-ECUSA, “On property disputes

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations. “

As I said, I need to read it again.

[124] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:31 PM • top

Well, yes, the HoB will pass a moratorium on SSBs, but it will not be unanimous, and violators will not be inhibited. And the HoB may even say they will not consent for the time being to ordaining another active homosexual bishop—they have said as much already.

[125] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:32 PM • top

I need to reread, too, but as for the presiding bishop’s good will - I don’t think reasserters can count on there being much of that. Considering how she has waged reconciliation so far.

[126] Posted by oscewicee on 02-19-2007 at 05:34 PM • top

Agreed, N,B&S. TEC will have a Communion council overseeing its actions (and inactions). Not bad!!! I think it’s better than tossing TEC out, actually.

[127] Posted by Brit on 02-19-2007 at 05:34 PM • top

It sounds like what they are recommending is nothing more than DEPO.  And note these statements:

“We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

“We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.”

So, we are to be left to the tender mercies of Schori and her cronies.  I hate to be the fly in the punchbowl, but these options have been available at every point since GC03; what the august members of our betters in ECUSA leadership have offered instead is lawsuits, against lay volunteers.  What’s different now?  Schori is on the AC Standing Committee and the possibility of disciplinary action against ECUSA has been neutered for several years, at least, while provinces engage in a race to the bottom to see who can modify the covenant draft to be the least effective.

And remember, what ECUSA is going to do is wave around that committee report and say something like: “We were given a clean bill of health by a committee that included two so-called conservatives, including one who is himself a member of the vaunted ‘Global South.’  That the final communique is less charitable is a product of a few reprobates, including an archbishop who proposes to jail homosexuals for having dinner together.  Note also our resolution passed at our last General Convention - the only body which can speak for us and which doesn’t meet again for two more years - that affirms our absolute, complete and inalterable autonomy.  While we respect the suggestions contained in the communique which is, after all, only a report, we have already offered a robust plan for the troublemakers in our province called ‘DEPO,’ and so we have already completely fulfilled the wishes of the Primates.”

[128] Posted by Phil on 02-19-2007 at 05:35 PM • top

Someone commented something the effect that “Ms. Schori signed off on this?”
Of course she would. She has all the power. She is recognized as a Christian Archbishop even though her teaching is contrary to the faith. Conservatives are told they cannot “alienate” property from ECUSA. I’m reserving judgment on the document, but I can certainly see how from Ms. Schori’s perspective this is a HUGE victory. No discipline. She gets a position of higher power. She gets to delegate authority to the primatial vicar and she now has a statement from the primates saying that conservatives are not supposed to try to sue to “own” their property.

[129] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

Here is the communique and schedule together on the ACNS website:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[130] Posted by Philip Snyder on 02-19-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

my take on the schedule - a bunch of nothing.

no 2nd province, a primatial vicar, no discipline of TEC, again sending this back to the GC of TEC, for “resolution” in another three years.

the utter vacancy of this is ASTOUNDING.  That so much verbage can be used to say “we’re punting” is scandalous.

there is nothing in this that indicates there is or will be any detriment to TEC’s all but assured rejection of TWR and BO33 in 2009.  Laughable.  Scornful, bitter laughter.

To think we have spent so much time on such a wasted project.

[131] Posted by Clay From Dallas on 02-19-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

Folks, this schedule of recommendations is fantastic.  This is about as good as it could have gotten.  The Primatial Vicar doesn’t answer to the PB, but the council.  The bishops have to be Windsor Compliant, or they are out.  According to the word I have, +Rowan agreed as a part of this deal that if they didn’t comply by September 30, he would withdraw communion from them.  No Lambeth for them.  Etc.

Our Presiding Bishop did sign off on this, in tears, I am told.

[132] Posted by Brad Drell on 02-19-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

Again, I say, it’s empty.

Again, I say, the skinny lady is singing ... with joy.

[133] Posted by albion on 02-19-2007 at 05:37 PM • top

I am sure she did sign it in tears. It is quite a reordering of TEC’s polity.

[134] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:39 PM • top

The makeup of the “Pastoral Council” is obviously key here.  KJS gets to pick two, the primates get to pick two and then Rowan picks a primate to chair the council.  I don’t feel so good about the odds of the orthodox to be frank.  I’m waiting for a statement from Bishop Duncan and ACN to alleviate my disappointment here…

[135] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 05:39 PM • top

Thanks Brad.  I agree completely - prayers have been answered.

[136] Posted by this_day on 02-19-2007 at 05:39 PM • top

Well, somebody has to pick Duncan, I think.

[137] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 05:40 PM • top

Yes - this is a strong statement but the real work begins now if it is to succeed on the ground. I disagree with much that the PB has said and done but recognize that she has an arduous and painful task in front of her. It will be a long journey home and many of her former allies may see her as having betrayed TEC. Lord, lead us into unity and have mercy on your servant Katharine.

[138] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 05:40 PM • top

Ladies, Gentlemen, Count me shocked. This is far far better than I had thought possible. I am schocked. I agree with Brad. This is very very good.

There is a time schedule for goodness sake

[139] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 05:41 PM • top

Brad’s right folks, it is a fantastic result for conservatives.  Not perfect, but still, fantastic.

[140] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 02-19-2007 at 05:41 PM • top

The primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

Hallelujah!

[141] Posted by this_day on 02-19-2007 at 05:41 PM • top

By the time I read through this thing and then the comments, there have probably been many, many more.  However, I will say that on a first read, it is not too bad.  I note the “some of us” in para 23.  I would wager a lot, in fact, that inclusion of the entire (brief) para 23 was itself fought over and only included at the insistence of some of the hold-outs.

On the whole, however, I give it a B, which is better than I was hoping for a few hours ago.  (I gave the Subgroup report a D).  That grade could go up or down, of course, depending on the mysterious “schedule.”

[142] Posted by Id rather not say on 02-19-2007 at 05:42 PM • top

Take some deep breaths people.  I don’t usually agree with the Anglican Scotist, but I also find myself saying “WOW—Schori signed off on all that.”
Is there discipline?  Uh, yeah.  Granted, a lot will depend on who the Pastoral Council is, but where in the history of Anglicanism is there any precedent for a special ad hoc AC Pastoral Council to do what is laid out in the schedule?
Is there areas of concern?  You bet.  Among them are (1) who gets to go to Lambeth?  (2) what happens if the HOB doesn’t make its unequivocal covenant not to bless SSB’s or confirm that B033 doesn’t forbid non-celibate gay bishops?  (3) what happens in the Diocese of SC?  (4) what happens if TEC ignores what is asked of it in the Schedule?
But I think that we orthodox should be moderately pleased with this document.  It is “the step forward” that we needed.  No, we aren’t “there” yet, but this is a step in the right direction.

[143] Posted by jamesw on 02-19-2007 at 05:42 PM • top

After reading and rereading this, I think reasserts should sit back for a short time and see how TEC responds.  The ball is in their court now.  For those of us you have sought refuge, we are safe for a while.  TEC is being called to stop all same sex blessings and no more actively gay bishops.  Will they agree to that?  No way.  The primates have put TEC firmly in the position of sealing their own fate.

Reappraisers will hate this once they have time to digest it.

[144] Posted by AKB1 on 02-19-2007 at 05:42 PM • top

The Primatial Vicar plan is back-with the “consent” of the PB.  Man, that’s gotta hurt!

[145] Posted by Brian from T19 on 02-19-2007 at 05:43 PM • top

It is gut wrenching to read through it all, including the schedule.  There is much, much that is good…but it all assumes that orthodox Christians who participate in the model are dealing with rational folks on the revisionist side.  The other post on “Charlie Brown & Lucy’s football” is entirely relevant.
Any of us who have experienced anything TEC (a convention, a diocesan meeting, an ENS release…anything) know deep down that we are dealing with a club run by its Donna Botts (“no theology, Bible or morals - just Episcopalians!”), single-issue advocacy cliques, and people who are just working out their psychodrama in the symbol-and-drama rich environment of religion.
The Schedule is calling for Christian behavior: adherence to Biblcal moral teaching, an end to lawsuits between church members, forgiveness and restoration.  But these all require a group of people who believe in - no, have experienced - the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  People whose choices and actions are moved by the reality of Jesus and fidelity to his purposes.
I don’t know that it is realistic for any of us to expect this from the kind of people we know in our real life TEC interactions.

[146] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-19-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

NOT bad; definitely could have been worse.

The money quote:
“The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”

Now you know how THAT came about -
Schori: I can’t make unilateral decisions
Primates:  Take it to your House.  You’ve got 6 months.

Can you honestly see the HoB signing onto this?  Their individual dioceses would flay them. Then the ECUSA will walk & the “Camp Allen Structure” - effectively a 2 province system - will take over. It’s beautiful, in fact - they beat Schori at the line in the sand game by not accepting the Windsor response committee report. So it WILL be the ECUSA who leaves, not the GS who splits.  Brilliant!

There is still a chance for genuine Anglican reunification!

[147] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

Clay;
Our situation is different, because Stanton never sought alternative oversight and has since pulled his request for anything from Canterbury—putting Dallas directly under KJS.  Email me offline, and we’ll talk more.  But this was the end of any thoughts I had about returning to the Anglican fold.  I’m glad some see it as a victory, and only hope they are happy playing this out for several more years. 
-Jeff

[148] Posted by Puritan Souls on 02-19-2007 at 05:45 PM • top

Since the Anglican Communion essentially a voluntary organization and it is all about getting along nothing can every be imposed on another province.  Until a coalition of primates decide to issue an ultimatum or a large group within the TEC decides to cede or both, nothing will ever happen.  The TEC will be consigned to be the sinking ship that it is.  How else is it likely that anything else will ever happen?  So what about a covenant?  It will take a least a few Lambeths to get that passed and then what do you do to those who flimflam the covenant?

[149] Posted by Rev12_11 on 02-19-2007 at 05:45 PM • top

“THis is a no-whining, no freakout zone”
Sounds to me like the Israelites are complaining about manna. Again.  hmmm  -or was it fudge?

[150] Posted by richardc on 02-19-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

I’m going to print the ‘shedule’ and leave work and go home and pour a couple of inches of Maker’s Mark and sip and read, and sip and read. The I’m going to watch ‘24’. There is a lot here, more than I expected and less than I hoped for. Right now, I tend to agree with Mr. Drell. Teddy mac, what you say, mon cher? I am interested in your take on this.

[151] Posted by RichardP on 02-19-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

Any bets on how the HOB will vote on this? My take: It will probably pass but barely. There will be mass disobedience with no consequences and we will be right to square one, waiting on more meetings. Having said that, the communique and attached schedule could have been much worse.

the slightly more hopeful snarkster

[152] Posted by the snarkster on 02-19-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

Setting up an actual structure like this is always tough, and requires a lot of work and a lot of seriously organized humans(i.e. the difference between theory and practice).  But, it CAN BE DONE. 

Take heart, all—THERE IS A GOD, and He just acted. 

A great big, fat, humongous thank-you to all the hardworking Christians at Stand Firm. 

HE REIGNS….

Love yas all, in the One,


Jen

[153] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-19-2007 at 05:46 PM • top

Rev12_11 - did you read the communique in full?  The ultimatum has been issued:

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

[154] Posted by this_day on 02-19-2007 at 05:47 PM • top

Brian - If I am reading it correctly, the Primatial Vicar must be chosen from Windsor Bishops.

[155] Posted by JackieB on 02-19-2007 at 05:49 PM • top

A Pastoral Council, and a Primatial Vicar, all under the control of Dr. Schori and her successors in office.  In the meantime, I can already hear the bishops of Los Angeles, Virginia, California, and a multitude of other places saying, “We won’t stop—it would be a breach of our fiduciary duty.  And besides, we want obedience!  What about their ordination oaths?!”  The orthodox will continue to stream for the exits, willingly or otherwise, and those who remain will be crushed.  We’ve seen it over the last four years, and there’s no reason to believe anything different will come after this.

[156] Posted by murbles on 02-19-2007 at 05:49 PM • top

I agree with Matt+ and Brad, and will have to moderate my overly pessimistic tone - though not much.  The schedule of recommendations is tougher than I would have imagined given the news of the last several days.  But what happens when ECUSA flat-out rejects the schedule (and it will)?  My reading says we are left with the status quo.  How well has that worked for the orthodox?

But, I could be wrong.  The September 30th deadline does suggest, by its timing, that Lambeth invitations hang in the balance.

[157] Posted by Phil on 02-19-2007 at 05:49 PM • top

[cough, cough,clearing of throat]

[158] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-19-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

That’s nice. Where’s my 2nd Province?

[159] Posted by henryleroi on 02-19-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

How will TEC ever go through with this?  They will have to get this all done in seven months.  This “Schedule” goes against the very cultural understand The Episcopal Church has about itself.

The other thing is the the authority is the Primates - not the ACC.  That sets up overseers of TEC in a way that has never been done before.  They have a time limit to get this all done - September.  And it’s only the House of Bishops - not General Convention - that will decided, which again, goes against the understanding TEC has about itself, that the House of Bishops cannot govern alone.

For the the progressive clergy and laity in the Episcopal Church, I cannot imagine how they will stand this.  It will mean no more unilateral decisions.  The Primates are moving in.  It’s an astonishing document.

bb

[160] Posted by BabyBlue on 02-19-2007 at 05:52 PM • top

MJD

Can you honestly see the HoB signing onto this?  Their individual dioceses would flay them.

Of course.  They promise not to consent, which is no problem because they can still nominate.  And as far as same-sex blessings, they promise not to authorize them and just let them happen without authorization of the Bishop.  To quote the Talking Heads: “Same as it ever was”

[161] Posted by Brian from T19 on 02-19-2007 at 05:53 PM • top

Brian - If I am reading it correctly, the Primatial Vicar must be chosen from Windsor Bishops.

This would be very good news if true.  How did you get to that conclusion?  The thing is very long, and I am relying on everyone else’s (more learned) interpretation in lieu of trying to get through it and understand it myself.

[162] Posted by Sparrow on 02-19-2007 at 05:54 PM • top

Yes, Jackie, that is correct.

[163] Posted by Brad Drell on 02-19-2007 at 05:54 PM • top

I have to admit I have not yet read every last comma, but this looks very promising.  I know there are comparisons to Neville Chamberlain, but let me offer another:
Only Nixon could go to China.

[164] Posted by BCP28 on 02-19-2007 at 05:55 PM • top

I believe this leaves no choice but for CANA and AMiA to continue as before. And this makes it permissible until the arrangements for a primatial vicar are in place. We all know that won’t ever happen.

[165] Posted by henryleroi on 02-19-2007 at 05:55 PM • top

I am cautiously optimistic.  But I haven’t read the Schedule yet. If Bp Schori gets to veto any appointments of orthodox bishops to oversee Network (etc) parishes, we will have nothing, as she will keep them from doing anything of meaning.

[166] Posted by AnglicanXn on 02-19-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.

And so it comes to this: 2 from +KJS, 1 By the ABC, and 2 from the Primates as a whole.  So, let us assume ++Rowan makes the chair a neutral call (a pretty good bet) that leaves the council at best as two to two. 
I am willing to bet that the split is one and one umonst the “primate”  choices.  That makes the count three to one to one.

I think that makes the stirring promise ring hollow.

RSB

[167] Posted by R S Bunker on 02-19-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

look AMiA and CANA and congregations outside of TEC are not forced back in. There is a negotiating process and these bodies are in some sense legitimized by this document. Moreover, they can actually take part in the college itself it seems if the terms are mutualy satisfying.

WE ahve a solution for the orthodox that stretches accross or straddles the institutional boundaris of the Episcopal Church

[168] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

What happens to parishes in non-Windsor dioceses?  I don’t see anything mandatory for their care. I only see that the Camp Allen bishops offer to care for them if the bishop with jurisdiction agrees.
This is the big thing to me.  There are hundreds of these parishes out there.

[169] Posted by Rick Killough on 02-19-2007 at 05:58 PM • top

Yes, the Primatial Vicar is a Windsor Bishop “under” the PB who will cede “some of her rights/duties.

[170] Posted by Brian from T19 on 02-19-2007 at 05:59 PM • top

Short of demanding the Bishops and Standing Committees of TEC also approve of the bishop-elect of SC, what more was realistically possible.  Not much.  (and reading between the lines his prospects are much brighter)

You’ve won the day at this bridge, my friends.  Mourn the dead, be gracious to your opponent and thank God for your victory.

Now please pray for us in Virginia that healing is still possible.

. . . thy will be done . . .

[171] Posted by miserable sinner on 02-19-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

Will the AMiA and CANA bishops now be a part of the TEC HOB?  Will Mark Lawrence get his consents?

[172] Posted by BillK on 02-19-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

I will withhold the pessimistic issues for individuals which will arise from this because my prayers for you guys seem to have been answered in the short run.  God is good and please don’t gloat about this but continue to be firm in your convictions. 

TWSF I say this in charity.  Please be more humble in your postings here and in other venues as God can change confidence to humbleness in the blink of an eye.

[173] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

I have read the schedule now.  It’s not bad.  I up my grade to a B+.

I note that the “Primatial vicar” is NOT as it was originally conceived of by Schori and company, but rather someone who does NOT answer only to the PB and is NOT chosen only by the PB.  Of course, TEC gets some say in who it will be, but short of a second province—and this IS short of a second province—that is all anyone could expect.  Meanwhile, TEC and in particular the HoB are called to account.

In addition, there is the stated threat that TEC may yet “walk apart.”

This is not Neville Chamberlain.  It is “the end of the beginning.”  Maybe.

[174] Posted by Id rather not say on 02-19-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

To go off subject for a moment:

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND GREG, SARAH, MATT, ANDY, KENDALL, BRAD DRELL, et al FOR WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC JOB THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE TANZANIA COVERAGE.
NO LONGER CAN WE BE KEPT IN THE DARK. INFORMATION RULES.
HOPE, ONCE MORE, SPRINGS ETERNAL-maybe.

the slightly more hopeful snarkster

[175] Posted by the snarkster on 02-19-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

Well, somebody has to pick Duncan, I think.

(chanting ) Duncan! Duncan! Duncan!

[176] Posted by wooly on 02-19-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

Just read the Schedule.  Praise God!  Just as Kendall said:  lots of surprises!  Overall, this is very workable.  Remember,  NO more ordination of non-celibates.  TEC has got to be on its best behavior OR ELSE.  Rowan just gave them all the rope they need to hang themselves.  I can’t see the laity and bishops giving in to this statement.  They will walk. 
Now off to wining and dining! tongue wink

[177] Posted by richardc on 02-19-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

I;ve got to admire Matt+ persistence in the rose colored glasses department.  I feel certain that we will both grow old and die in the liberal TEC that exists today.

[178] Posted by Brian from T19 on 02-19-2007 at 06:02 PM • top

It puts off the split until later this year…why, for goodness sake, not just get it over with now?

It confirms my decision to want nothing further to do with the Anglican Communion. I only wish others would have the courage of their convictions - because there simply can’t be agreement forged out of diametrically opposed viewpoints, unless some people end up lying. And how can that be viewed as any sort of integrity?

[179] Posted by Merseymike on 02-19-2007 at 06:02 PM • top

This, including the schedule, made me laugh.  The Pastoral Council can be easily stacked against us, with the PB appointing two, the ABC one, and the Network ZERO.

Speaking of which, did I miss something? Is the Network even mentioned in here?  I don’t think so, and that is a slap in the face.

And this reads too much like a scheme to nicely put the wolves back in charge of the hens.

And to sum the whole thing up: no orthodox North American province, and delayed (at best) discipline of the TEC.  It’s close to the worst thing that could have happened. 

These are my initial thoughts and I reserve the right to change my mind.  But that’s where I’m at now.

[180] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-19-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

I’m trying really think this document through but I have a question about PROPERTY.
Does anyone read the section on property as clearly saying the the Episcopal Church owns the right to a congregation’s property and that the parishes in VA must not try to “alienate” their property?

[181] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Brian from T19—re “The Primatial Vicar plan is back-with the “consent” of the PB.  Man, that’s gotta hurt!”

I hesitate to feed you, but you might be able to add to the conversation if you would lay off being snotty.

[182] Posted by Gator on 02-19-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Wooly,

do you REALLY think the PB will consent to Duncan?  I’m thinking Herzog - just retired - clearly orthodox but not looked upon as a rebel rouser.

[183] Posted by richardc on 02-19-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Lee Parker, no gloating. But hope now for a way forward - for all of us - that doesn’t call for us to abandon our church or sacrifice our faith. Thank you for your prayers.

[184] Posted by oscewicee on 02-19-2007 at 06:04 PM • top

From what I have heard and seen; we all need to pray and ask Christ to instill his words into all the leaders so that they will think and reflect on what He said in Matthew 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and DO NOT HINDER them” also in Luke 17:2 “It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin” I am a fairly young Christian bout an older man and I see where the TEC stating that homosexuallity is not a sin when God in the old and Christ in the new testaments stated it is. Yes we are born with it in us for we are born to sin but the thing is we make the choice from there to live for God or live for Satan. I have chosen God and I hope that many more will before He comes back. My God bless us all and may His will be Done

[185] Posted by chulolee on 02-19-2007 at 06:04 PM • top

Am I to accept the below resolution which was passed in October and go back to TEC in the Diocese of Olympia.  I don’t think so. 
The resolution (#5), detailed below, passed with 317 in favor, 79 against, and 51 abstentions.
•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 , 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;”

[186] Posted by carol on 02-19-2007 at 06:04 PM • top

Where does all of this leave Mark Lawrence+ and any other orthodox priest who may be elected bishop?  The “Schedule” mentions the lawsuits, but it does not look like there is any way for an orthodox bishop-elect to ever get consents.  So they can just wait us out.

[187] Posted by Ann Castro on 02-19-2007 at 06:05 PM • top

This just in: Jake don’t like it. That alone speaks volumes.

the snarkster

[188] Posted by the snarkster on 02-19-2007 at 06:05 PM • top

I am absolutely shocked by how many conservatives think this has little to no teeth! Living on the other side of the pond, this looks like a real positive move for traditionalists. I think everyone should be thanking God now rather than complaining. I know it’s not as quick a fix as a drive-thru dinner, but this is the Church not fast food. What I think needs to happen is the traditionalist to show themselves willing to work with the Primates on this so that your good names are not damaged. Look, this is a big communion and things move slow. Rejoice in the Lord, the Anglican Communion remained faithful to the teaching of the majority in Christ’s Church! We give you thanks, O God!

[189] Posted by Fr Jeffrey on 02-19-2007 at 06:06 PM • top

I know!  Let’s form a committee!

Seriously, compared to crystal-clear Biblical statements on same-sex intercourse, which posed absolutely no hindrance to ECUSA, this communique is mud.

[190] Posted by Cousin Vinnie on 02-19-2007 at 06:06 PM • top

NO, Brian - see BabyBlue’s comments - the left will rebel if that happens.  They will not accept it, period.  If you thought the right could exodus, watch a left that gets its polity knocked in the knees.

As to the Primatial Vicar, see IRNS’s comments.  It’s not your mother’s Primatial Vicar. wink

[191] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 06:07 PM • top

Snarkster,
There are entirely appropriate off subject responses, yours qualifies.
I echo it.
Bob

[192] Posted by livingus on 02-19-2007 at 06:08 PM • top

Merseymike, it saddens me to think that there is no hope of reconciliation from your vantage point. One of the reasons that many of us remain in TEC is because we don’t want to give up on our brethren, of whatever stripe.  There is a way to reconciliation, but it involves sacrifice.

[193] Posted by Rick Killough on 02-19-2007 at 06:08 PM • top

Ruth Gledhill’s take:

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/02/tec_put_on_noti.html

The US Episcopal Church has been given seven months to change its ways or face being kicked out of the Anglican Communion. In an unexpectedly hard-hitting set of recommendations, Primates of the Anglican Communion demanded an “unequivocal common covenant” under which dioceses in The Episcopal Church agree not to authorise same-sex blessings.
They also demanded that no more gay men or women in active relationships with a person of the same sex be consecrated bishop.
The recommendations are so severe in demanding proper repentance and a turning back from The Episcopal Church that even arch-conservative Peter Akinola of Nigeria was prepared to sign up. Bishop Jefferts Schori also signed it, but there will be many in The Episcopal Church who will be
angry at what they see as a sell-out of their liberal ideals.

[194] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 06:08 PM • top

The Anglican right should be pleased. Even though it is workable, and I think the HoB will pass it, you are correct to say that leftists like me call for it to be denied.

I do not think Schori would have signed on if she thought she could resist safely. The Windsor Bishop thing—I guess—did her in, and it will do the HoB in. The result freezes TEC in place.

[195] Posted by The Anglican Scotist on 02-19-2007 at 06:10 PM • top

richardc, no - no more ordination of non-celibates to the episcopate.  And I see we’ve once again avoided the inconvenient question of why it’s OK for a non-celibate homosexual to be a priest but not a bishop.

[196] Posted by Phil on 02-19-2007 at 06:10 PM • top

To me, it looks as if it is all over. The fox is still in charge of the chicken coop. Our folks will not control the council supervising all this, and the vicar will have only the powers which Schori delegates. The cowardly Windsor bishops will be rewarded with control which they do not deserve after the courage and hard word of the Network bishops. I’m not going to wait for the next big meeting which everyone will say is going to be the one which really really does solve the problem, despite the failure of all the other meetings. I’m sick of all this hot air and delay. I just need to decide whether I go to the Romans or to the Eastern Church, and be done with it. Christians have no future in ECUSA.

[197] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 06:10 PM • top

And here is what Fr. Jake has to say:

UPDATE: The Schedule of Recommendations is here. The House of Bishops are given until September to respond. Once again, the Primates fail to recognize that the House of Bishops does not have the authority to respond by themselves.

There’s a number of points that we cannot possibly agree to.  No point in detailing them all right now. Once again, I wonder why only TEC is being asked to agree to such a cumbersome process? No mention of Canada or New Zealand. And no mention of how we are to meet the pastoral needs of our members under such recommendations.

I await an explanation from our Presiding Bishop.

(emphasis added by me)

I predict that this is just the beginning…

On the other hand, you do have Jim Naughton already beginning to play revisionist wordgames with what “bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing” means.  Naughton obviously says it only means they can’t authorize liturgical rites, but can permit them to happen.  Methinks, Naughton is being naughty.  I would suggest that it means no diocese can give permission for SSB’s to happen whether using a specific rite or not.  I don’t think it means that bishops must discipline priests who do them, but diocesan authorities may not approve their being done.

(BTW - KGL - the schedule does not say that.  It merely says that “no steps will be taken to alienate property from TEC” - if it ain’t TEC property, it can’t be alienated from it.  Now, obviously, they mean for both sides to lay off property disputes.)

[198] Posted by jamesw on 02-19-2007 at 06:11 PM • top

The complaint about the document letting ECUSA possibly stack the deck by appointment is valid if the document didn’t lay out the agenda and the time table for the committee.

[199] Posted by ExEpiscop on 02-19-2007 at 06:11 PM • top

As one who was ready to bail if “nothing much” happened in February I can say that I’m not bailing.  Clearly this is something significant.  How it will turn out remains to be seen but it is enough to keep me in TEC.

[200] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 06:12 PM • top

Amen, ukimmigrant! Thank-you for that reminder.

To God be the glory! 

As someone who, two hours ago, wondered if she could even witness in a Continuum mission with the name “Anglican” attached to it, I find lots of good news here.  I feel MUCH for hope than I did after either Windsor or Dromantine.

[201] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 06:13 PM • top

Folks, finally ACCOUNTABLITIY! Balls in TEC’s court.

[202] Posted by fh57 on 02-19-2007 at 06:13 PM • top

Well… this is good indeed. The liberal-left confusion has been reigned in, and certain far-right parties, who were counting on said liberal confusion to break apart the Church, have likewise been disappointed today.
Praise God! it’s a great day for the middle!

[203] Posted by CJ on 02-19-2007 at 06:13 PM • top

re: Thank you STAND FIRM for all of your hard work in reporting and in its timeliness. I’ve been so thankful for this service. I’ve made a small donation via PayPal and wondered if there would be others who would take the time to give even $5.00…if there are over 1,000 people reading this, that would be a small way to thank these folks for this service.
Posted by npanglican

Great idea, but I can’t find any “donate” button . . . ???

[204] Posted by Kathleen C on 02-19-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

Matt:

OK, I’ll admit I’d like your analysis of this document immensely.  I find it bewildering, actually.

Re:  Primatial Victor

Does or DOES NOT this person have to answer to Shori?  I want that clarified.  If they do, then I will never submit to going under that system.  I’ll leave Anglicanism first… seriously, I just fought to get out of heresy for three years - NOTHING will make me return to that injustice.

[205] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 06:15 PM • top

I am in a Global South Anglican Church.  We are not in this for process, or for the sake of winning a secular battle with TEC.  We are in it for the broader Christian cause, and we will not allow our message to be diluted, or our effort diverted, through identification with the future envisioned by this document.

Exactly how that will impact our identity, I don’t know.  But I see less and less possibility of reuniting with those that remain on the inside of TEC.  I am very sorry to have to say that.

[206] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 06:16 PM • top

Hasn’t your Primate signed up to it?

[207] Posted by driver8 on 02-19-2007 at 06:17 PM • top

Will Mark Lawrence get his consents?

That is a good question, and it will be a real test of how TEC is going to decide on the level and spirit of its co-operation within this framework.

Best case: yes, closely.  +KJS appoints one “Windsor” Bishop and one none Windsor Bishop to the Council and invites the primates to do the same. There is a moritorium on property suits and transferals for one year, and the PB recommends one of her critics for the APO job.  I don’t think that will happen.

Here’s what I believe will happen.  +KJS will take a neutral position on Lawrence and he will lose.  She gets the cover and her friends get to pull out their long knives.  This will bring about a crisis in the Diocese of South Carolina and one or two others that will allow +KJS to walk away from all this looking as though she was trying to wage complience.

[208] Posted by R S Bunker on 02-19-2007 at 06:17 PM • top

Eclipse there is nothing in this document that forces you back in. Notice that those entities alienated from TEC and already under a different jurisdiction are not forced back in. Rather, your primate may work to negotiate a workable solution if you wish to be cared for by a bishop of the college. But if not, you don’t have to.

[209] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 06:19 PM • top

Richardc,

I think that if “..those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council..” pick Duncan, then she has no choice but to consent.  Doing otherwise would put her personally at odds with the other primates.

But, since she has proven time and again that she is plain spoken, I would enjoy seeing her try to thwart his appointment.

[210] Posted by wooly on 02-19-2007 at 06:19 PM • top

“We should keep moving forward on reversing B033 and including rites of blessing in the next BCP. If the Anglican Communion can stay together, fine. If not, too bad. This kind of statement inclines me to believe that there is little worth saving in the Anglican Communion. We need other structures that are mission oriented rather than control oriented.
Bill Carroll”

from here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/terry137/7033536281890839474/

[211] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 06:20 PM • top

amen chulolee

[212] Posted by MattJP on 02-19-2007 at 06:20 PM • top

The subcommittee report had added “allowing” instead of “authorizing” rites… BUT the Communique unwisely did not close the loop… already the same verbal dodge is in play… BUT giving the HOB a hard deadline while preparing for whoever is left is a huge step…

and clearly Lambeth 1.10 remains the standard to which all is to be compared, however messily…

If this is the end of Round 1, consider you now have an opponent with a little less weight, reach, and skill.  No KO in 3 minutes, and you expect to win—but it ain’t gonna be easy or painless.

In the next 2 years, you want to be a TEC drone… but in 10 years, you will want to be Anglican.

The deck has been stacked… in our favor… but we have to play it out.

We’re happier with this than TEC is… if we do the work and do not run…

Who really has been sold out with this?—read the hard data, not the lack of fire and brimstone.

I hate the waiting, too, but the news is better that many of us thought…

[213] Posted by hoping against hope on 02-19-2007 at 06:21 PM • top

I’m not sure how to take it all yet, but I note a couple of things in the Schedule that seem to have significance:

1.  “The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.”  So this could all end with the covenant.  And whether that will be something ECUSA can sign, or sign and disregard at will, seems unclear.  On the other hand, below this portion, “clarifying the response to Windsor” means that the HoB must “1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and 2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134)”.  I wonder whether the HoB will agree to that.

2.  “Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.”  The Pastoral Council - including Schori’s representatives - will have to negotiate with Akinola, Orombi and other GS primates as to how CANA (and AMiA!) will come within these provisions.  I don’t see anything that does not permit them to negotiate an out should TEC not properly “clarify its response to Windsor”.  And note that this appears to legitimize those border-crossings already in place, until those overseas primates agree to let them come under the new pastoral council.

3.  “The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.”  A stand-still would probably be acceptable to many of the churches.  But at the same time, this would not seem to be inconsistent with putting everyone back at the negotiating table as require by 2, above, which is where I think many of the departing congregations in revisionist congregations under GS primates were asking to be. 

4.  “[I]n consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme [the Windsor bishops] will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council; the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.”  That seems like a delicate negotiation.  The Windsor bishops get to nominate the PV, but the PB gets a veto, and decides what powers to delegate.  Unless the Windsor bishops accept what the PB decides to delegate, they don’t have to nominate.  So it looks like either side can tank the scheme by refusing to meet the other halfway.

Note that #2 seems to address those congregations that have already left for a GS primate.  #4 seems to address the Windsor bishops.  Both seem to give those congregations and diocese some control over their destinies.  For congregations still in TEC, there seems to be less protection, relying more or less solely on the good will of the pastoral council.   

As I said, I still wonder what this will all mean.  But I am starting to wonder if the headline should be “Anglican Primates ask US Church to Cooperate in Setting Up New Conservative Jurisdiction”.

[214] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-19-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

Matt:

Thanks.  I thought that’s what it said - but it’s such a bunch of gibberish - it’s going to take hours of working through it to try and get a grasp of it.

I’m under B. Orombi - so I don’t see his putting us at risk - thanks be to God.

I am sorry, however, for my brothers and sisters inside of ECUSA who are stuck with this, however.

[215] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 06:22 PM • top

Ruth Gledhill’s calling it a decided traditionalist victory and Susan Russell’s furious.  Yep, it’s a victory! wink

[216] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 06:24 PM • top

“What happens to parishes in non-Windsor dioceses?  I don’t see anything mandatory for their care. I only see that the Camp Allen bishops offer to care for them if the bishop with jurisdiction agrees.”

This is Rick’s question from above and it is an important one to be answered.  My hope is that there will be a trade-off as I am sure there are reappraising parishes in reasserting dioceses who will be looking for a similar oversight.  At least that’s my prayer…..It would be great to be under a Network Bishop.  (I don’t say Windsor/Camp Allen Bishop, because I think some of those are playing both sides right now…)

[217] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 06:25 PM • top

BTW, for you liturgical types out there, if a priest so much as says “God bless you” in any kind of even semi-formal fashion to a gay couple, that’s a “rite.”  Naughton is being too clever by half.

[218] Posted by Id rather not say on 02-19-2007 at 06:27 PM • top

naughton is too clever by half?  oh

[219] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-19-2007 at 06:28 PM • top

Many have been waiting for the Primates to come to our rescue in a dramatic life changing way. Well this ain’t the movies! Our hope is in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth, not man, not even the primates. It is that simple. The illusion of a quick fix is quickly fading.
Chapie+

[220] Posted by Chapie+ on 02-19-2007 at 06:30 PM • top

You know, if it’s true that it was Akinola who held up the process, he’s owed a lot of thanks, and thanks to God for their faithfulness.

[221] Posted by Dazzled on 02-19-2007 at 06:31 PM • top

Will Naughton and co. ever get tired of “Parse the Language”?  That game is really getting to be dumb. 

Some here are still upset with the “lack” of discipline, but it’s rather there in a clear choice:  Tow the line, or accept “associate” status. 

What matters is the two most important things that did not get “sold out” here—The Triune God and His Revealed Word in Scripture. 

AMEN

[222] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-19-2007 at 06:32 PM • top

Can someone link Susan Russel’s response. Thanks.

[223] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 06:37 PM • top

BTW, how is a bishop determined to be a “Windsor bishop”? The obviously liberal bishop of my diocese claims to be a Windsor bishop.

[224] Posted by Teacozy on 02-19-2007 at 06:37 PM • top

How in the world are people getting the idea that this is a victory? The dioceses requesting alternative primatial oversight don’t get to nominate the primatial vicar—the whole crew of Windsor-compliant bishops get to do that, most of them being people who regard the Network bishops as schismatics. And the vicar will have only the powers delegated by Schori and ECUSA, serving under a primatial council to which she gets to appoint two of the five members. We asked for Napoleon and we got Vichy, folks. This is completely unacceptable.

[225] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 06:38 PM • top

I found the strengthened commitment to Windsor very positive.  The church needs to demonstrate leadership in following God’s will.

But I’m also glad to see that we’ll also continue to study issue of homosexuality, and see the report in 2008.  The Bible is clear that the behavior can’t be tolerated.  But I’m not comfortable simply walking away either - I have many gay friends that are living in spiritual darkness, and I will continue to pray that the church finds a way to help bring them back to a right relationship with God.

[226] Posted by ktfromca on 02-19-2007 at 06:38 PM • top

Just for y’alls information Peter Lee of Virginia would consider himselh a Windsor bishop.

RSB

[227] Posted by R S Bunker on 02-19-2007 at 06:40 PM • top

Lots to read and think about. One quick guess though. I would give odds that no date was in the original for the HOB. Akinola held out until there was a reasonable date. The man is a tower people.

[228] Posted by Rocks on 02-19-2007 at 06:40 PM • top

People are reading in to this what they need.  Here is my take:

Winners
++Schori - The weekend has elevated her standing within the ACC, and this document ensures she will go to Lambeth with another meaningless gesture the HOB.  She has prevented the development of a seperate province, and ensured that the new Primatial Vicar will be drawn from an institutionalist that will not push things further.

Institutionalists in non-ACN Episcopal Dioceses:  This allows them to claim victory and will take the heat off of Priests, Bishops and lay leaders to formally seperate from TEC.  It shouldn’t, but it will.  It won’t help attract new members, but it will keep some people from leaving for a while. 

Common Cause Partners (non-WO) There was little chance that they were going to join the new Anglican churches anyway, so they are relatively unaffected by this setback. They will get a few Episcopaleons leave at this juncture and will benefit from the publicity.

Losers

Global South Anglican Churches TEC is not, and will not, be discliplined. There a superficial arrangement for Windsor Bishops will be controlled by the Camp Allen institutionalists, is not a seperate Province, and will not become a seperate province.  There is a call for property to remain in the hands of TEC and a statement that seperation from TEC is a bad thing.  Ironically, this loss can become a victory for these churches if they can unite under a common vision notwithstanding the end of the road with Canterbury.  But it remains to be seen if that is possible. 

Neutral
The AMIA’s redirection is looking pretty smart right now.  They are not harmed by the property statement, and are forming an identity that is less affected by these types of setbacks.

[229] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 06:42 PM • top

Rick Killough - the way I read it, it appears to be the orthodox parishes still in revisionist diocese (i.e., not gone to CANA or elsewhere with the GS) that are the least protected under all this.  However, if you assume that the Windsor bishops nominate a good primatial vicar, and Schori delegates substantial protective powers to the PV, that primatial vicar could protect and oversee the parish.  In that sense, the Windsor bishops hold your congregation in their hands, but their interest is to have a good PV, or none.

Incidentally, in my post above I said the negotiating table is “where I think many of the departing congregations in revisionist congregations under GS primates were asking to be”, I meant “where I think many of the orthodox congregations that departed from revisionist diocese to come under GS primates were asking to be”.  I’ll never get the hang of this revisionist/reppraiser thing.

Most importantly, it is “shed-jewel”, not “shed-jule”; it has three syllables.

[230] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-19-2007 at 06:42 PM • top

I JUST WANT TO COMMEND GREG, SARAH, MATT, ANDY, KENDALL, BRAD DRELL ...

*koff*

*koff koff*

[231] Posted by David Ould on 02-19-2007 at 06:45 PM • top

Praise The Lord!!!! I read the full document elswhere. And ECUSA has been taken to task and have to put their house in order by September this year. There is discipline and also an opportunity for TEC to repent and come back to the fold.

[232] Posted by AhKong2 on 02-19-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

Kathleen C.,

Allow me to direct you to the donation page.

wink

[233] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-19-2007 at 06:48 PM • top

I must retract all comments I have ever made that in any way left the impression that +++Williams was not absolutely brilliant (pass the Guiness).  He has single handedly divided and conquered all opposition to the church’s march toward Unitarianism.
Remember, he asked for the Windsor Bishops to meet.  This meeting diluted our message and even asked for the GS Primates to be sent home (see the Appendix letters), and he has now crafted a further process that seems to give the Com-Cons just enough hope to hand-on a couple more years.
The man may be a theological liberal, but he is a brilliant tactition.  My hat is off to him as we begin the search for a new home…

[234] Posted by Wilkie on 02-19-2007 at 06:50 PM • top

And THANK-YOU, David Ould! grin

KGL+ - Russells comments are on the feed from Fr. Jake’s blog, referenced by Matt+, above.

[235] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 06:51 PM • top

The thing is, Timothy - TEC is going to have to comply by September 30th.  I just can’t imagine how The Episcopal Church is going to now suddenly accept that Lambeth 1.10 is THE teaching of the Anglican Communion and that TEC will no longer employ “full inclusion” into the church.  That is what this document says - NO MORE full inclusion.  TEC said “the spirit is doing a new thing” and this document will force TEC to say they were wrong about that and comply.  I just can’t imagine how that’s going to go over with the full membership of General Convention or the individual Diocesan Councils.  The document only recognizes the authority of the House of Bishops (and then adds a new organation that will have authority seperate from General Convention and under the Primates themselves).  Again, how is The Episcopal Church going to embrace all this?  If it does, it will be a different church then it is today.

It’s up to TEC to decide if it will comply with the Communique or not.  We will watch and see.

bb

[236] Posted by BabyBlue on 02-19-2007 at 06:51 PM • top

Timothy at least is astute enough to figure out what has actually happened. ECUSA has not been taken to task. They remain in control, and they will fudge compliance with this document the way that they have fudged compliance with all the other documents. If we want to stay in ECUSA, we will be placed under the control of a vicar chosen by the institutionalist Windsor bishops, not by the Network bishops. A Network bishop doesn’t stand a chance of being chosen as this vicar. The vicar will be a Quisling like Edward Little or some other collaborator who talks orthodoxy but bends the knee to Schori and 815. And the vicar will be part of ECUSA and have only the powers delegated by Schori and ECUSA. Wake up, people. We got absolutely nothing we wanted. At best we can say that the Global South Primates weren’t reprimanded for border crossings, and that ECUSA will have to jump through a couple of hoops which the ACC and the ABC will whitewash, the same way the subcommittee whitewashed ECUSA’s compliance in their report to the Primates. This is absolutely not a victory.

[237] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 06:53 PM • top

I agree this is about as good as any realistic orthodox anglican could have hoped for.  I’m pleasantly (I think…) surprised.  My initial impression of the schedule, however, is that everything above the “Sept 30” paragraph is interesting but mushy, especially the council appointment structure.  The property paragraph at the end is pretty vague too.  I pray blessings upon the primate(s) who stood up for the Sept 30 section.  ++Akinola?  Similarly, I pray blessings upon the StandFirm gang for all the coverage.  Thanks folks.

[238] Posted by sandiegoanglicans.com on 02-19-2007 at 06:54 PM • top

Why does such a strongly worded document not also request the early retirement of Bishop Robinson?

It sort of leaves him in a no mans land.

How come the Canadians ( New Westminster)and the New Zealanders ( Dunedin) got off scot free?

Why wasn’t Doctor Williams asked to re-cant all his pro-gay theology?

[239] Posted by robert ian williams on 02-19-2007 at 06:54 PM • top

Wow…my wife and I just sat and read the schedule together, line by line…much, much better than on first skim and very hopeful.  Yes, we are dealing with manipulative and destructive people who will be set against the Pastoral Scheme…but there is a bunch of very specific language indicating that the Primates have heard from orthodox people and recognize the TEC word games. 
I echo the praise given to this and other blogs.  Without the flow of information, the deception could not have been challenged effectively.  And blessings (and rest!) to the Primates who fought hard and long to protect faithful Anglican Christians.
And I am so grateful that the care of CONGREGATIONS is part of the Pastoral Scheme.  Thanks be to God.

[240] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-19-2007 at 06:56 PM • top

Empty absurdities. Imagine if this “process” had been in place in the early church. “Let’s split the difference with the Judaizers.” The church would not be what it is now. How can the un-Biblical innovation of women’s ordination ever be addressed when open abomination is tolerated? I plead with you all to head for the hills and begin to rebuild.

Joel
http://www.allsoulsanglicanmission.org/

[241] Posted by Joel on 02-19-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

This is HUGE! I will have to reread several times to pick up all the subtle undertones (Anglospeak is SO nuanced and polite), but my take on one read is that the glass is at least half full. Maybe overflowing if we take full advantage of the options offered.

Just the fact that they set a drop-dead date for the HOB to get off the waffle on SSU and consents for non-celebate gays is a sign they mean business. I subscribe to the theory that they fed TEC just enough rope to hang itself and find itself out of the AC, with only those choosing to comply being the “legit” Province. Someone opined that the HOB would balk at the mandate for getting off the waffle. If so, the “walk-alone” scenerio will be soon. Else, it will happen when the Covenant is presented for approval.

(BTW, KJS’s election to the standing committee is a no-brainer- given. It is a Regional election and she had three out of five votes in her pocket (US, Brazil and Canada). No big deal.)

The call for a stop to the property suits was not a check on the departing parishes, it was a check on the suing Bishops, including KJS. It clearly called for continued use of the property by the congregations. Quite a shock for some Bishops.

The Primates were not fooled by that dopey ACC committee report that tried to give TEC a pass on Windsor compliance, and they won’t be fooled by any attempts to finesse their proposed solution.

I would love to know what the sticking points were that led to today’s delay, but I guess we should be satisfied with the end result. No spiritual triumphalism, Brian, just a sigh of relief.

Until an hour ago I was weighing whether it would be Rome or LCMS, but now I think I will remain Anglican and stick around to watch the TEC carnage.  Any guesses on what message the Canadian Church will take from this?

[242] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

I must agree with ukimmigrant’s comment that

...this looks like a real positive move for traditionalists. I think everyone should be thanking God now rather than complaining. What ... needs to happen is the traditionalist to show themselves willing to work with the primates on this so that your good names are not damaged. ... Rejoice in the Lord, the Anglican Communion remained faithful to the teaching of the majority in Christ’s Church! We give you thanks, O God!

Even before reading his post, I was struck immediately upon reading the communique by its strong statement and reiteration in paragraph 11.

that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. ... The primates have reaffirmed this teaching in all their recent meetings

and by the equally unequivocal and unambiguous statements in paragraphs 17, 21, 22, 23 and 24, as well as the recommendations concerning how the communion may move toward resolution with the covenant. 

In my humble opinion, those who were predicting a solution that would essentially “paint TEC into a corner”—where they will be required to explicitly address, unambiguously one way or the other, the issue of the teachings of 1.10—have been largely correct in that expectation. Nothing guarantees that TEC will submit or comply, nor even that the PB will respond in good faith with good will, but this is, or certainly appears to be, a mechanism which is capable of arriving at a clear determination of what TEC’s stance is going to be. And this certainly has the potential to get those of us who need it off of the emotional roller coaster that we have been riding the past week.

[243] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 02-19-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

First, thanks to Stand Firm and all of their hard work.  (Wave to the elves, too.) 

I find nothing within this comminique to view in any optimistic lens.  I think this is particularly hard for those of us within “Windsor” diocese that have not sought APO.  As someone aptly pointed out, nothing has changed, those diocese are still under KJS.

So many seem to be focusing on the “rules” set up regarding openly homosexual bishops and SSU’s.  I thought we had moved passed it being a “gay” issue.  We have been given crumbs, specks of crumbs.  I thought lightbulbs had gone off in the realization that the consecration of Robinson was just the presenting issue, that at the core was ECUSA’s march down the path to apostacy and heresy.

What in this comminique slows down that march?

Gay bishops and SSU’s are merely symptoms of that wider problem.  One cannot get to either without a wholesale disregard of Holy Scripture and the Traditions of the Church for the past 2000 years.  You know, those basic tenets of faith those the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian believe in. 

The fact that KJS was received as a Primate when she has openly espoused heretic, non-Christian beliefs is worse than 100 Gene Robinson.  Remember it only took one Bishop Pike and one Bishop Spong to get us to where we are today.

God forgive me for whatever error or arrogance within which I might speak, but I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, that the cause of Christ, His Kingdom and his Holy Church would have been better served if there had been a split of the AC today.

[244] Posted by Gayle on 02-19-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

Windsor Bishops:

One of the catches of the Schedule is what it says about being a Windsor Bishop.  Lee can call himself a Windsor Bishop, but to be one under this, one must be one of “the bishops expressing a commitment to ‘the Camp Allen principles’ [reiterated in a footnote worth reading], or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council”.  The Camp Allen principles are not something that will be easy for revisionist bishops to sign on to.  The phrase “as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council” may raise a concern of manipulation by the PB appointees, but there are some checks on that; if they subvert the purposes of the council, it will not become “fully operational”, and until then, border-crossings are recognized.  Further, for the CANA and AMiA parishes to come into the arrangement requires the pastoral council to negotiate with Akinola, Orombi, et al, who are likely to be an impediment to the pastoral council becoming too revisionist.

Initial thoughts, anyway.

[245] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-19-2007 at 07:03 PM • top

BabyBlue’s got this nailed.  That’s exactly it.  ANd - credit where credit is due - I think Schori wanted it that way.  I can very much see her going to the HoB and saying, “Choose this day” and letting the chips fall where they may.  Which is why, I believe, the deadline is well before the Lambeth invites.  And if they didn’t believe the “fudge” of the subcommitte reports, they’re not going to believe another half-baked response from the ECUSA.

[246] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

We all need to breathe deeply. It’s been a week full of mostly down news, and coming on overly optimistic expectations it’s not surprising that many people don’t see that the noose just got A LOT tighter for TEC.  On one level they did just kick the can down the road a ways (AGAIN), but on another level, we need to remind ourselves how cautious primates need to be in protecting the Church, not only from heresy, but also from schism.  The Primates are continuing the pattern of allowing TEC to make its own decisions about where they want to be vis-a-vis the Communion.  At each juncture they rachet up what is required, and they have done that again.  I don’t think they can meet the expectations laid out in the schedule, certainly not by Sept. 30, 2007.  Then again, who would have thought that anyone could issue such a glowing report about the actions of the last Gen. Convention as the ABC just did?  My advice to all would be to remember that this is moving on God’s time, not ours.  Don’t get your hopes too high for Sept. 30th, or even for the next Lambeth Conf.  The news here is good for the orthodox, far more than for the revisionists (who only gain a bit more time at a price that may well be too high to pay), but orthodox frustrations and impatience is very high.  So we all need to pray for patience—more than anything else.

[247] Posted by Chris Taylor on 02-19-2007 at 07:05 PM • top

It’s a fix, Chapie+, nobody said it would be quick. But God has just handed us a tool—it’s up to us to use it.

[248] Posted by CJ on 02-19-2007 at 07:08 PM • top

Chris, I disagree.  This has not been a week of mostly down news; it has been a week of mostly down speculation.  The bad news was first the sub-group report whose view isn’t supported in the final communique.  Another piece of bad news was KJS’ election.  The rest was a misreading of the tea leaves by overly excited bloggers.

[249] Posted by Tonyonalatophehopestosell on 02-19-2007 at 07:10 PM • top

....making my way to the donation page.  You guys rock!  cool smile

[250] Posted by Teacozy on 02-19-2007 at 07:14 PM • top

BabyBlue, the HOB will answer the request for an unequivical response with one that equivicates a little, and doesn nothing to stop what is really happening.  That will be decried by some here, but will be cited by others as compliance.  But you can be assured one thing,  the HOB response will not result in ++Williams taking action against TEC and Tanzania has proven the votes are not there among the Global South for serious action.  Even if the HOB failed to provide the committment, the votes do not exist in the AC for the creation of a seperate province. 

Truro’s identity is not in winning a voting contest at a Primate’s meeting, or in a hope that the HOB will trip over itself in September.  This fight is draining resources and attention. Its time to move on.

[251] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 07:14 PM • top

I think this has teeth.  I do not believe TEC Bishops will buy into this.  If they do, I would bet their extreme left will implode over it.  It is clear that the GS has been faithful.  I don’t see how this can make Brian et al comfortable.  True, TEC and KJS will strain the meaning of the English language to claim that they are doing what is asked of them, but I think they may be called to task if they don’t follow through on the ground.  I do not envy KJS.  She has to go to her leftist base and explain how she could agree to this.  Having the September deadline is very important.  TEC can say until they are blue in the face that only GC can decide, but I wouldn’t bet on the primates buying that line again, especially after GC06 and Camp Allan, where Bishops did decide something without GC support.

[252] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 07:20 PM • top

“GC2009 will see TEC walking away.  At that time, the orthodox will get what they want.” How can anyone realistically think that some future meeting is finally going to do something substantive after every other meeting has merely deferred meaningful action? What was actually done this week to discipline ECUSA and give us our own orthodox province? Absolutely nothing. We are offered a place under Schori, mediated by collaborator Windsor bishops, in which the Network will play at best an incidental part. I’m probably beginning to repeat myself, but I am just dumbfounded by all this talk of a victory, and how we really socked it to ECUSA this time. What are you guys smoking, and where can I get some? smile

[253] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 07:21 PM • top

Update - Susan Russell’s postscript:

“1 - We were told that ENS would have a statement with quotes from +KJS out at 1:40am Tanzanina time but that was over an hour ago ...

2 - Jim Naughton has a nice compilation of “early reactions” over at Daily Episcopalian.

3 - Kendall Harmon “has his hat off” to all who worked so hard ... which is, frankly, never good news for those invested in the full inclusion of all the baptized in the Body of Christ.

4 - My email inbox is full of messages that start, “How could she ...” and “What does this mean ...” and “Why would I stay in a church that ...”

And at the moment, I don’t have a single answer for a single one of them.”

Please remember, brothers and sister, prayers for Katharine Schori.  No matter one’s opinion, this is a woman who’s been through a lot in the last 5 days.  As one who knows and personally likes Kathy Schori, I ask that you please, PLEASE remember her in prayer at this time.

[254] Posted by MJD_NV on 02-19-2007 at 07:24 PM • top

Over on epiScope- Ms. Schori gives a comment, “Jefferts Schori said the Primates “have also acknowledged and supported” her November 2006 proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties at the Presiding Bishop’s direction.”
Interesting.
http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/

[255] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 07:30 PM • top

On Sunday I told a fellow parishioner at our AMiA church that I didn’t know if I wanted to call myself Anglican anymore. After reading the communique and seeing reaction to it, I am happy to still be an Anglican. We certainly have some battles ahead though.

[256] Posted by MattJP on 02-19-2007 at 07:33 PM • top

I agree with Gayle.  At the end of the day this leaves all of us still yoked to the heretics, something we are enjoined by Scripture not to be.

[257] Posted by Ann Castro on 02-19-2007 at 07:46 PM • top

I’ve read and reread the press Communique and Schedule. As an Orthodox Believer, I find little to celebrate.
1. Did the Global South Primates refuse to sit with or receive Communion with with Mrs. Schori as they indicated in earlier statements?
a. No, they blinked
2. Was the TEC desciplined for lack of full compliance with Lamberth, Windsor etc?
a. No, The Primates blinked
3. Was the TEC persuaded to force their Sodimite Bishop to resign or retire and was there a prohibition on Gays being ordained Deacons and Priests in the TEC?
a. No, they fell far short
4. Were the only parts of the Anglican Community in America experencing dramatic growth and planting new churches encouraged?
a. No, the AMiA and Other Global South Missions have been capped.
4. Were the perscuted orthodox believers in Canada extended any protection?
a. No, Subject never came up!
The Primates are counting on the goodwill, integrity and selflessness of the TEC Leadership to make things work out. I believe they will once again be very disappointed. We have spent so much time waiting for the next meeting, conference, report or the Primates to make things right. The only solution to stop the hemorage of true believers from our historic church is an American solution. I prayfully call for the AAC and Network Leadership to formally break from TEC NOW and establish The Orthodox Episcopal Church USA. It’s time to stand together, pray, pray and pray and step out in faith before there is none left to stand.

[258] Posted by Larry in SA on 02-19-2007 at 07:50 PM • top

Not bad. ++Williams performed about as expected. One smart cookie. TEC clearly could not defend the indefensible. Primates forced Missus Schori into a date certain performance. Fr. Jake is not happy, so I’m happy. ++Akinola screwed them all to the wall I’m betting, based on the time that this took. Obviously he didn’t need “the votes.”
What is needed now is a serious campaign that studies every scrap of evidence of non-compliance from the TECies from now until September. There are a few thousand of us, all over the US. Let’s turn up the fire under them, and not let a single word or action pass our notice. Got the stomach for it? It’s still not over. Just closer.
If you want me, I’ll be at Fred’s Lounge in Mamou tonight. Lundi Gras you know. I’ll hoist one to a good win, and another to Stand Firm.

[259] Posted by teddy mak on 02-19-2007 at 07:51 PM • top

“I don’t mean to be a party pooper, but this isn’t on ACNS and being an academic I am dying for a primary source.  I think the schedule-if it really exists, will have ACI written all over it.”

ACI??!!

Huh?

[260] Posted by Michael Daley on 02-19-2007 at 07:52 PM • top

The rose colored glasses might belong to Matt+, but richardc is correct, TEC is now performing on the 50 yard line of the Global South Super Bowl.

[261] Posted by Brother LeRoy on 02-19-2007 at 07:56 PM • top

“I prayfully call for the AAC and Network Leadership to formally break from TEC NOW and establish The Orthodox Episcopal Church USA. It’s time to stand together, pray, pray and pray and step out in faith before there is none left to stand.”

Larry, I agree totally. The ABC is trying to make us keep the gangrenous leg which is threatening our life. The amputation must go on.

[262] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 07:57 PM • top

In particular, the primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless [emphasis added] some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

Heretofore, the revisionists have sought to limit their agreement until some new consensus emerges.

[263] Posted by Rough Hugh on 02-19-2007 at 08:02 PM • top

The can has been kicked down the road to:
30th September 2007.

[264] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-19-2007 at 08:03 PM • top

Stand Firm,
I commend you for outstanding coverage.
RC

[265] Posted by RealityCheck on 02-19-2007 at 08:03 PM • top

I also agree totally with Larry. This thing has no end in sight, and we’re wasting our time thinking TEC will ever actually ever be seriously reprimanded. Now it’s September, then it’ll be Lambeth, then it’ll be somewhere else, but it’s going to only get worse. When there’s a new Prime Minister, we’ll get a new humdinger of an Archbishop of Canterbury, and the whole thing will be liberal beyond all conception. It’s time to move….......

[266] Posted by Ribstone on 02-19-2007 at 08:06 PM • top

Re:
“Jefferts Schori said the primates “have also acknowledged and supported” her November 2006 proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties at the Presiding Bishop’s direction.”

Seriously, I WILL NOT be under this woman in any shape, way or form.  She is NOT A CHRISTIAN… so why would I go under her leadership as a Christian?  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Who can tolerate this can call themselves a follower of Jesus???

If this ‘primatial vicar’ is under her leadership and our non-ECUSA Anglican churches are handed over to her - then the battle is over and we will be out of here - we and thousands of other Christians who have, obviously, the misfortune of attending American Anglican Churches.

[267] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 08:07 PM • top

Gayle,

You would have preferred a split today? I think that is exactly what we saw! A split that said to KJS and TEC, “Put up or shut up (by September 30)”. A clear path to a point where those who adhere to the Camp Allen accords, the Windsor Report and today’s Primate’s requirements can stay, and all others are out the door! Of course some of us already see the end game, and wish it were over, but the Primates had an obligation to play it out even-handedly, even though they knew that they were dealing with liars and cheats. To confront the liars and cheats would have been, well simply, un-Anglican. Take heart, the tide is swinging in our favor. Figuratively, 1997’s 1.10 is still the “law of the land”, and the revisionists in ECUSA have to be in panic mode.

Let not your heart be troubled, the AC bishops at Lambeth will send a message loud and clear. Remember that their voting strength is more proportional to the total number of Anglicans (and therefore where the faithful are still faithful) and less like the voting powers of the Primates, which more nearly follows the proportions of wealth.
The 5xx-7x vote on 1.10 in 1997 was pretty clear. I suspect the margin is even greater today since the faithful have been growing faster and adding dioceses at a much faster rate.

Alleluia!

[268] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:08 PM • top

I paused briefly to add a comment at comment #148 and by the time I had spell-checked it and sent it I refreshed and found we were at comment #268! Bravo Stand Firm! TBTG we have a voice. Now I am going to forego dinner and read the 120 more recent comments. A blessed sacrifice.

[269] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:12 PM • top

There are many differences between the schedule and the ACI proposal that make the schedule a far more workable proposal for federal conservatives. First those who have aleady departed TEC for other jurisdictions may, if they choose, participate in the college of windsor bishops, but their participation is not required (thus implicitly recognising the communion legitimacy of bodies like the AMiA and CANA)

Second, if they do choose to do so, their participation will be negotiated by their primate. So the terms under which seperated parishes interact with the college could potenitally be far better and different than those currently within TEC.

The ACI thought such an arrangement would be impossible and recommended leaving those outside TEC to themselves for the next two years at least.

So, what the essentially accomplishes is something like the structure that already exists within the Network, a Windsor compliant body that exists within TEC with organizational ties to those without.

Potentially, in fact, +Minns could be recognised as a bishop in the college.

[270] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 08:12 PM • top

RC,

Many thanks, especially because at times it actually felt like work!

[271] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-19-2007 at 08:13 PM • top

I really do not want anything broken up or anyone kicked out, soI feel pretty good about the result.  The AC still hangs together and TEC has to declare if it is in or out.  A good result arrived at in a very diplomatic way with no real loss of face.  I think my frustration at this process is just because I do not understand how the primates and the ABC think.  I am happy with this.

[272] Posted by RoyIII on 02-19-2007 at 08:15 PM • top

To add my thanks, I just wanted to point out again that for some reason the PayPal button is not showing up on everyone’s screen.  (It does not on my computer, but it does on my husband’s…???)  I am not asking for donations to SFIF (although I think it’s a great idea), but if you have been trying without success, I think you should let Greg know!

[273] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 08:20 PM • top

Matt,
Give ACI the credit they are due.  This schedule is substantially similar to their original plan which evidently was done in September, updated and published on 30 Nov, and continually modified up until the meeting.  You will recall I reported what I learned at the AMiA conference, when I said there would be four primates supervising three bishops over the college of bishops.  Well, we can see now that what I heard the good Bishop Duncan describing was the modification of the ACI plan.  The three bishops, we now know, were the three nominees from which a vicar will be chosen, and the four primates, now five (which I imagine was negotiated this week but only time will tell), were the pastoral council.  And they addressed your concern in which you explained the fedcon issues of taking it out of the PB’s control.  They listened.  ACI did a helluva job in designing something and improving it over time.  Chris Seitz and others are due a great debt of thanks for their creativity.

[274] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-19-2007 at 08:27 PM • top

But Craig,

It also is quite similar to the vision articulated by +Duncan at the Network conference in Pittsburg…two streams one inside and one outside ultimately meeting in a provincial structure.

I did not say that the ACI was not key to this, obviously so. But I am saying that this goes beyond and in some places against the ACI recommedations and it does so in ways that favor fedcons.

[275] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 08:31 PM • top

Have just noted the change in the sig line of the Snarkster. Welcome back friend, let’s fight the good fight!

[276] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:31 PM • top

I am tired, very tired of hearing that the problems are due to the consecration of a non-celibate bishop.  This was only ‘the straw that broke the camels back.’  When one’s bishop says to the congregation he is visiting that there are a number of ways to be saved, not only thro’ Jesus Christ then I don’t think that all the talking in this world can make for reconciliation.  Let’s stop talking about people’s lifestyles and start talking about what ‘we’ and ‘they’ BELIEVE. 
I am astounded that Canterbury has not pick up on these differences before now and feel that he and others have let us down. 
What happens now to those of us who have already left ECUSA ?

[277] Posted by justme on 02-19-2007 at 08:32 PM • top

It seems to me that the next important date is not Sept. 30, but rather the day the lawsuits against BabyBlue and others in Virginia are dropped.  Although I’m encouraged somewhat, I’m holding my breath until that happens.  That will be the first indication that TEC is serious.

[278] Posted by Miss Sippi on 02-19-2007 at 08:34 PM • top

I don’t know what to think.  All that comes to mind is:  “God so loved the world he didn’t send a committee”.
ps - whoever thinks VGR will retire early is clearly delusional.  VGR is such a narcissist he’s probably celebrating in Concord, assuming ALL of this is about him!

[279] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 02-19-2007 at 08:36 PM • top

Oh yes.  I forgot to mention that, too.  Bishop Duncan lived on an airplane putting this together and I know he spent a ton of time in working to coordinate with Bishop Murphy in November.  My bet is that AMiA changed their self-identity to a missionary order partly in anticipation of the possibility of flanging themselves into what we read here.

[280] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-19-2007 at 08:36 PM • top

Merseymike and Newbie Anglican,

You were looking for instant gratification and that is not a part of the Anglican vocabulary. Take my word. This was a victory. If you leave the tent you are schismatic. Our objective is to dare TEC to be schismatic. Schismatic is evil. To be avoided.

[281] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:40 PM • top

Wow, what a difference a schedule makes around here.  I feel vindicated for calls for patience and hope.  No way anyone can read all these comments but I hope they are all hopeful now.

[282] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-19-2007 at 08:41 PM • top

Cousin Vinnie-
I think you missed the announcement. 1997 R 1.10 is restated as the “law of the land”. How much clearer can they make it? Certainly not “mud”.

[283] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:46 PM • top

Gulfstream, I, also, see nothing in this comminique to allow me to return to my former TEC out of the continuing church that I have been attending since the first of the year.  And that is not without a great personal cost, as I feel like I am playing out the role of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons.  Like More counsel his daugther Meg in regards to the Act of Sumpremacy, so will I counsel my children to find something within this comminique that would allow them to remain within that parish.  I have excommunicated KJS, and as she remains in primatial authority over TEC parishes, I cannot return.  And that means that I will not be spending Lent or Easter in the same church as my children.  No small cost at all.

I had no idea how painful it would be to honor the conscience and light that the LORD has given to me in this matter.  But I can do no other.

I pray that Lambeth 2008 will come up with a corollary to Lambeth 1.10.  The LORD has lead me to understand before there was a Louie Crew, or Susan Russell, or Gene Robinson there had to be a Pike or a Spong or a Matthew Fox or even a Hegel.  In order to safeguard the AC within the faith of Christ (the faith doesn’t need safeguarding the LORD will make sure that His Church is protected), then something akin to 1.10 must be passed to ensure that provinces cannot elect someone like KJS as Primate who cannot uphold the basic tenets of the faith such as the divinity of Christ, the literal virgin birth, etc. 

How I longed to be enjoying the Pancake supper tomorrow night with my children at that beautiful, consevative and friendly TEC church I used to attend! 

Greg, you really need to get a smiley that sheds tears.

[284] Posted by Gayle on 02-19-2007 at 08:50 PM • top

<u>Parsing the Communique</u> re TEc—A SYNOPSIS

9-12 Summary of Leadup to Windsor

<u>Response to Windsor so far</u>
13. A report on whining pro-homosexual-activity lobbiests is forthcoming.
14. The Panel of Reference has done nothing
15-16. The Covenent is in progress, and will take several more years of revision before being ready for examination by member churches.

<u>On the Episcopal church</u>
17. “The majority of the Communion” believes TEc’s homoerotic bishops are a problem.
20. “Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report” [*cough*b———t*cough*]
21. “we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church” [Lack of clarity? Its contempt for Windsor seems pretty clear, actually.]
23-4. “some of us believe” TEc hasn’t backed away from its revisionism yet. [Do the others not believe this or simply think it’s a good thing that it hasn’t?]
25. Windsor-complient folk in TEc are being oppressed
26. Interventions by foreign primates have “exacerbated this situation” but they don’t intend to stop while the persecutions continue.
27. Some TEc dioceses have problems with Dr. Schori but “we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected.”
28. We can’t do anything to help these folk in TEc—“such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life”

<u>The Future</u>
29. We need a Covenant to explain what “bonds of affection” means.
30. In the interim, gosh, it’d sure be nice if people obeyed Windsor.
31. TEc really ought to get about to obeying Windsor
32. Until then, jurisdictional oversight will continue to be offered
33. Even though the revisionists in TEc are honked off at this
34. Those who are intervening won’t stop until Windsor is embraced; those who are refusing to embrace Windsor won’t budge until primatial intervention stops. IMPASSE
35. The “Schedule” is the proposed solution to this impasse being recommended to the primates.

:
:

<u>The Schedule</u>

<u>Goals</u>
* affirm Windsor
* create a Covenant
* re-unite TEc and reconcile TEc with the rest of the Communion
* uphold autonomy and (pardoxically) interdependence
* be pastoral to those being persecuted in TEc

<u>Pastoral Council</u>
* Membership: 2 elected by primates (primates are mixed ortho- & hetero- dox), 2 elected by KJS (apostate), 1 primate elected by ABC (ambiguously heterodox)
* This council will work with KJS and other TEc bishops—but basically just “monitor” and “report” and “discuss” and not really do anything.

<u>Pastoral Response</u>—i.e. a “New DEPO” process to go about surrendering the “Global South” parishes back to TEc.
* The council (mentioned above) takes petitions from bishops who want to participate
* The bishops will nominate a Primatal Vicar to provide alternate primatal oversight, but <u>only “with the consent of the Presiding Bishop”</u>
* And <u>KJS will determine what powers that Primatal Vicar shall have</u>. (“the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar”)

Once this is done, The Global South parishes will be returned to Episcopal Church oversight, under this Primatal Vicar. (“Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.”)

This will be the new ‘status quo’ until the Covenant is put forth.

:

The primates also want a clearer affirmation of Windsor within 7 months or “the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole [will remain] damaged at best”

The primates would really like everyone also to stop suing each other. Please?

:
:

Analysis to follow.

pax,
LP

[285] Posted by LP on 02-19-2007 at 08:50 PM • top

The recommendations are so severe in demanding proper repentance and a turning back from The Episcopal Church that even arch-conservative Peter Akinola of Nigeria was prepared to sign up. Bishop Jefferts Schori also signed it, but there will be many in The Episcopal Church who will be
angry at what they see as a sell-out of their liberal ideals.

It will be interesting to see if JKS comes home and lives up to her promises, or does a “Grizzy” and comes home and does the opposite.

[286] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 08:53 PM • top

I still do not believe that this document is a great victory. I do believe that it is step in the right direction and that we’ll see what ECUSA does and how the Communion responds. However, I wonder if it might be a bigger victory than I thought after reading this response by Susan Russel and Integrity,
Primates Choose Bigotry Over Baptized

Just issued Integrity Press Release:

“The primates of the Anglican Communion have utterly failed to recognize the faith, relationships, and vocations of the gay and lesbian baptized,” said Integrity President Susan Russell, responding to the communiqué released today from Dar Es Salaam.

“Let us pray it doesn’t take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates to gather for a service of repentance for what the church has done to its gay and lesbian members today, as they repented in Zanzibar yesterday forwhat it did to those the church failed to embrace as full members of theBody of Christ.”

The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had thisreaction: “Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”

Integrity encourages its membership and allies to directly contact their bishops—urging them to reject the demands of the primates. Our leadership will seek an immediate meeting with the Presiding Bishop to express our deep concerns and encourage the Executive Council to insist on the inclusion ofall orders of ministry in the ongoing process of discernment on Anglican Communion issues.

PRESS CONTACTS
The Rev. Susan Russell, President

Boy, she’s made. Maybe we’ve moved further in the right direction than I had thought!

[287] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 08:54 PM • top

Sorry for the typos. “Boy she is mad” is what I meant to write.

[288] Posted by KGL+ on 02-19-2007 at 08:56 PM • top

Okay here’s just one typical problem.  I live in a revisionist diocese which will ultimately sign on as a Windsor diocese.  I lost my parish in this fight and while I’m still an Episcopalian there is no ACN, orthodox, AMIA or continuing church in proximity to my community.  The diocese of upper SC is certainly not Windsor or orthodox.  I now worship at a PCA church.  So what about individuals?  I have answers but I would like to hear from you guys.

[289] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 08:56 PM • top

As for me and my house, we shall be doing cartwheels.  grin

[290] Posted by Jordan Hylden on 02-19-2007 at 08:58 PM • top

Chazzy, and others

If you feel the need to move on to Rome or the EO, go with my blessings. But know that there are perhaps 65 million of our 70 million Anglicans who are faithful Christians, and some of us need to stand with them. Sorry you can’t help us.

[291] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 09:00 PM • top

Chazzy, you’re right on the money!!

[292] Posted by Ribstone on 02-19-2007 at 09:06 PM • top

Lee Parker:

Re:  An ACN diocese

We had this same problem.  So, we contacted our nearest Convocation of the ACN and began to figure out what we could do.  They will help in any way possible.  We had no church in the area - but we have one now, due to their encouragement and the encouragement of other Anglican Communities in the vicinity. 

I wil give you the same advice that was given to us in this juncture:
“It is difficult and heart-rending to separate - but once you do - it is like freedom has been given to you once again.”  This from a sister parish about 200 miles away.

It was difficult to leave ECUSA - but I don’t regret it - especially when I see all of this stuff.

[293] Posted by Eclipse on 02-19-2007 at 09:13 PM • top

<u>The Communique—Analysis</u>
== or ==
DEATH OF THE GLOBAL SOUTH PARISHES

The Communique says a number of forceful things about how PECUSA hasn’t really (according to some primates anyway) really lived up to Windsor or made adequate signs of repentence. This is stating the obvious.

Indeed, the Communique does a lot of stating of the obvious and rehashing the past or making sweeping generalizations about everyone’s opinions. It gives TEc yet another deadline to adequately respond to Windsor… but the only penalty for failure is that the relationship with the A.C. will “remain damaged”. Big whoop.

As to the situation itself, the Commuique says there’s an impasse: the revisionists/apostates won’t budge further on Windsor until primatal jurisdiction ceases; primatal intervention won’t cease until they think Windsor is being more truly embraced.

<u>And so the primates have brokered a deal by which they surrender the Global South parishes back to the Episcopal Church</u>, in the hopes that then TEc might reconsider living up to Windsor.

:

The “meat” of it, for those ‘stuck’ in TEc, is that proposed way forward. And, once you cut out the rhetoric and remove the statements of “opinion” and so forth, to look at what these parishes are being given up for, it’s pretty bleak.

* First, alternate primatal oversight will be offered by a “Primatal Vicar” who is acceptable to KJS.

* Secondly, the powers of that Primatal Vicar will be determined by KJS

* Third, the primates’ “representative” in all this will be a Council of Five, working as a partner with KJS.

* Fourth, that Council of five will have 40% of its membership picked by KJS, another 40% will be compromise candidates who can be agreed upon by the primates as a whole, and the remaining member a primate picked by the ABC (who will pick another compromise candidate).

:
:

The upshot is that, for the next however many years (perhaps a decade?)  it takes to get a Covenant drafted, reviewed, revised, represented, sent to national churches, sent back for revsion, re-revised, re-reviewed, voted on, this will be the situation:

The primates are going to SURRENDER the Global South parishes back to TEc, to be under this KJS-stand-in “Primatal Vicar”, in order to try to encourage the revisionists (once the “primatal intervention” has thus ceased) to re-consider taking Windsor more seriously (yeah, right).

This Primatal Vicar has to be someone <u>acceptable</u> to KJS, and will have only those powers which <u>she gives the vicar</u>. And the Primatal Council advising her will consist of 2 KJS-picked cronies and 3 compromise candidates.

And, meanwhile, TEc policy—which confirms VGR but refuses consent to Fr. Lawrence; which will wait until the more conservative bishops retire and replace them with liberal ones; which continues to crank out apostates and theological non-entities from its corrupt seminaries—will continue unabated.

:

So, despite the “forceful” language used in describing some of the realities of the current situations, at that point where the Communique has any actual practical effect, I judge that, IMHO
it represents a TOTAL DEFEAT for “traditionalists”.

I hope I’m wrong.

I fear I’m not.

pax,
LP

[294] Posted by LP on 02-19-2007 at 09:20 PM • top

Timothy,

Your dream of a separate Province was just that. A dream. Take the victory we have and help us work on advancing it. Please don’t cave in to the losers.

[295] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 09:21 PM • top

I do not think Timothy’s idea of a seperate province was a pipe dream at all. In fact, I think we have seen the first steps toward the creation of one in this communique. There will be a new province but it will rise out of both the husk of the old and be joined together with CANA and AMiA. It will be a beautiful thing

[296] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 09:23 PM • top

comment deleted

Chazzy. This is a warning. There will not be another one.

You will not use derogatory terms to refer to our friends or our opponents on Stand Firm.

[297] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 09:23 PM • top

There is no way that the HOB will defy the left wing political activists who control TEC.  The Episcopal LGBT bloc is demanding defiance and they will get it.  If the primates are serious TEC will be gone from the AC Sept 30.

[298] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 09:23 PM • top

+Lee had his famous/infamous “I’d choose heresy over schism every time.”  It is interesting that now the reappraisers in the church have to choose between having less than “full inclusion”, a heresy to them, or schism on their part.  I do feel for them, honestly.  I have been sitting in the “should I stay or go” and “where will my children be taught ‘the fear and admonition of the Lord’” and they are now in the same boat.  As we can all attest, it is very easy to get sea sick in such a boat.

[299] Posted by rwkachur on 02-19-2007 at 09:24 PM • top

Chazzy: “The homos ...”

Let’s not stoop to poor language, people. No need to use insulting terms.

[300] Posted by David Ould on 02-19-2007 at 09:27 PM • top

Greg, Sarah, Matt, David, Kendall, et al:
THANK YOU. I was with you at the Mere Anglicanism conference and heard you speak on how blogging has changed and shaped our access to information in these critical days. I was humbled by Greg and Sarah’s willingness to STAND and DO SOMETHING through this website. Two smart lay people making a difference, speaking up—it is an honor to see lay people so love their church to make a difference that so many of us have benefitted from. And to Matt+, God bless you and Anne and yours for your stepping up to the plate in the midst of this mess and your unswerving committment to the Gospel. You’ve all provided information and education in an invaluable way. I was happy to send some money your way via PayPal and encourage many others to support STAND FIRM financially as well.

[301] Posted by periwinkle on 02-19-2007 at 09:28 PM • top

Matt, You beat to it. I was going to make the same remark.  I wonder about your thoughts on two scenarios that could make that happen rather quickly: (1) HoB emergency session meets, but instead of agreeing to do as asked, votes to disassociate with the AC ; and (2) HoB and TEC do not comply by 30 Sep 07, and Cantaur, as he promised, takes action within CoE to break communion with TEC.

Another longer term play is that we now see a liberal exodus to UCC or other liberal denominations.

[302] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-19-2007 at 09:31 PM • top

This is an amazingly complex document.  And, having given it a little time this evening, I must say it is rather masterful.  I had expected the worst.  Now I see a tremendous amount of hope here.  Here is what I see that is hopeful:

1.  The teaching of historic Christianity on homosexuality is repeatedly reasserted. (I dont know how this might work in an Anglican setting, but in the Catholic Church that means the other side begins to wane in stature and influence and eventually acceptability—WO is an example).  I also dont see this as likely to be reversed any time soon.  For KJS, this is the first bitter pill.

2.  While a separate province is not erected here it is hinted as a possible future solution of the present set up fails.

3.  KJS and the ECUSA bishops essentially lose direct jurisdiction over dissenting parishes.  OK, so it’s not crossing borders exactly, but outsiders to ECUSA will have a major influence over these dissenting parishes.  This is the second huge bitter pill for KJS.

4.  The moratorium on new gay bishops is now virtually indefinite.  While GR is not removed, he is the last of his kind for the foreseeable future. Third bitter pill.

5.  No approved SSUB text doesnt sound like much.  But if the teaching of 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is upheld SSUB are on shaky ground.  Future meetings of the Primates etc. may easily tighten the noose around the gay agenda folks.

It is my contention that ECUSA is pretty close to irreformable.  However, in this document it has been shamed and chastened severely in my opinion.  I suspect the ECUSA will walk away on its own.  And, in the long run it may be better for the Communion if it chooses to leave rather than being forced out.  It is a more Christian, less scandalous way to part company.  It will also give dissenting parishes better legal cover, I believe, if/when the split comes.

Lastly, if I were KJS, I could scarcely have penned my name on this and would find it hard to face my comrades upon return.  I bet she was in tears.

So, be of good cheer, or at least better cheer.  I certainly am.

[303] Posted by Jason Suggs on 02-19-2007 at 09:36 PM • top

“There is no way that the HOB will defy the left wing political activists who
control TEC.  The Episcopal LGBT bloc is demanding defiance and they will
get it.  If the primates are serious TEC will be gone from the AC Sept 30.” We have no right to conclude that based on previous experience. The more likely scenario is that there will be another committee, another listening process, more ambiguous reassurances from ECUSA, another extension of the deadline, and more apostacy. If that is not what is likely to happen, then show me why that is so, based on previous experience.

[304] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 09:42 PM • top

Well Chazzy, this is the first time we have seen a communique like this one, with such clear demands and a timetable.  There is a first for everything.  We shall see.

[305] Posted by Nevin on 02-19-2007 at 09:43 PM • top

I have not yet heard (did I miss it?) from the reappraisers who will surely declaim, “The Communique is impossible because it violates TEC polity!” and then will go on to cite the chapter and verse of the canons to prove their point.

[306] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-19-2007 at 09:45 PM • top

Seems to me that a lot hinges on the identity of the Primatial Vicar.  If he is a strong, reasonably orthodox leader then this person will be a natural to take over a parallel province after the HOB refuses to accept the terms of Windsor/Dromantine.  If he is weak, however, then the parallel province will have to start from scratch.

On the whole I think this communique is a pleasant surprise, but we’re not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.

Wolverine

[307] Posted by Wolverine on 02-19-2007 at 09:48 PM • top

IMPORTANT.  All. Stop whatever you are doing right now.  Check out the Stand Firm site meter.

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s26standfirminfaith&r=6

75,000 visits so far today and climbing.  Nearly 350,000 visits in the past week.  And at most 5-10 minutes of down time that this elf has seen (IF that.).  Astounding.  Absolutely simply incredible.

I know Greg et al really appreciate the kudos and verbal praise folks are leaving here.  But they are going to owe mega bucks for this bandwidth.

Go click on the paypal button now.  (Especially all of you Titusonenine refugees that came here to get your Anglican news fix)

[308] Posted by The_Elves on 02-19-2007 at 09:49 PM • top

oops sorry, my bad.  350,000 page views in the last week.  Not visits. Still.  Darned impressive!

[309] Posted by The_Elves on 02-19-2007 at 09:53 PM • top

Elf-girl….  If we sign up, can we be put on an email distribution list to let us know what costs are and how well they are being covered by those of us who use SFIF so much?  I don’t want to take up commentary space, but I have no idea what is coming in for you all and what is having to be paid out.  My email is on file with you, and I would welcome knowing how else I can be of assistance.  Thanks to you and Greg!

[310] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 09:53 PM • top

Liz—I’m one of the T19elves.  The Stand Firm folks will have to answer your question.  I posted the above purely on my own initiative without any prompting from SF.  They deserve amazing accolades for this feat, believe me.

[311] Posted by The_Elves on 02-19-2007 at 09:55 PM • top

Thanks Eclipse and you have a point.  It will be easier to start an ACN Parish now.  The problem is that my diocese has been nurtured as a revisionist one verses say the diocese of SC which has been nurtured orthodox.  You see the diocese of SC has a long list of orthodox and vocal clergy.  In my diocese there has been one clergy who would speak out through this entire mess.  There are several who claim to be orthodox but they have been silent.  So as an individual I have no real local Anglican options.  I have remained in this fight for several reasons:

1) To support Matt, Sarah, Gregg, Kendall, you etc.

2) To fight for the catholic church

3) To support those folks in my area who are orthodox but are too meek to act on their convictions

For orthodoxy to have a chance in my area it will require a plant and support from the ACN, AMIA etc.  I believe it is time and the ACN may have a mandate now to do it.  What do you think?

On another note you betcha blogging has made a difference.  The internet will likely have the same effect as the print press had on the distribution of the bible and the spread of Christianity.

[312] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 09:57 PM • top

I think a lot of people owe an apology to Craig Uffman for pillorying his “over-acceptance” theory.  I think things turned out very much as he (and I) predicted.  TEC (while not getting the discipline we both saw it so richly deserved) is now hung by the thumbs of the very half-hearted and insincere resolution it tried to peddle to the Communion.

Now can we sit back and enjoy the fireworks over 815?

[313] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-19-2007 at 09:58 PM • top

Thanks, elf-girl!  I thought perhaps you had chosen SFIF as Alternate Internet Oversight!  smile

[314] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-19-2007 at 09:59 PM • top

Jeffersonian,

This is not overacceptance.

[315] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 10:04 PM • top

Matt - it’s the product of overacceptance as Craig tried to bring attention to in his first post of the thread, and I quote:

[cough, cough,clearing of throat]

Granted, the Primates clarified the understood meaning of B033 to mean no more VGRs and no more SSBs (as I predicted), and demanded that TEC do the same just to make sure (even better, IMHO).

Regardless, Matt, I think we will agree that this is going to cause a huge donnybrook over at Camp Revisionist.

[316] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-19-2007 at 10:14 PM • top

I do not doubt that overacceptance shaped the sub-Group report. The problem is that the communique is largely a refutation of that report and so is not the product of overacceptance

[317] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-19-2007 at 10:17 PM • top

Chazzy, because Akinola will keep um all up late again!

[318] Posted by Lee Parker on 02-19-2007 at 10:22 PM • top

Okay here’s just one typical problem.  I live in a revisionist diocese which will ultimately sign on as a Windsor diocese.  I lost my parish in this fight and while I’m still an Episcopalian there is no ACN, orthodox, AMiA or continuing church in proximity to my community.  . . .  I now worship at a PCA church.  So what about individuals? 

I was blessed to be able to move close to an AMiA church after having to spend a couple of years in a nondenominational church.  I know exactly what it feels like to be in your shoes, and I don’t have an immediate answer.  However,  when I didn’t have a local Anglican option, it was at least a comfort to me to know that someone out there was concerned about what I was going through.  Archbishop Kolini helped start the AMiA because he felt that, during the genocide in Rwanda, the world stood by and let tens of thousands of people die. He didn’t want to stand by and watch us suffer from spiritual genocide without intervening.  The AMiA keeps adding churches (on average one every three weeks since its inception).  I pray that some orthodox alternative develops somewhere near you.

[319] Posted by Sparrow on 02-19-2007 at 10:24 PM • top

The Network and Camp Allen efforts, courageously and tenaciously supported by Archbishop Akinola, Archbishop Orombi, and the Global South, are visibly bearing fruit.  “Enduring ECUSA”  could become a reality, with “Innovating ECUSA” pruned from the vine.  My goodness.
Thanks be to God!

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
Feb. 19, 2007

[320] Posted by MarkBrown on 02-19-2007 at 10:27 PM • top

Sarah Hey - I pray that you are well and recovering from your labors of the week and I trust that once you have digested this day you will favor us with your wisdom and analysis.  May God in His mercy give you rest and encouragement.

[321] Posted by Cross Mountain on 02-19-2007 at 10:28 PM • top

“The point is that TEC is essentially on in a probationary limbo until and unless she accomplishes her task of becoming WR compliant and if she does not the probation becomes a separation.”
Not impossible, but I’ll believe it when I see it. My own expectation is further obfuscation and further delays.

[322] Posted by Chazzy on 02-19-2007 at 10:39 PM • top

Your dream of a separate Province was just that. A dream. Take the victory we have and help us work on advancing it. Please don’t cave in to the losers.

Gulfstream, don’t see it as caving in. When do you think this ends?  It won’t end with the Bishops report in Sept., it won’t end with the next Lambeth (with Schori attending) and it won’t even end at the next General Convention, it even won’t end in 2014 (read the fine print) when a Covenant may be circulated for approval.  In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing that will be done to slow down same sex blessings done on a “pastoral” basis, the ordination of non-celibate gay Priests (not even addressed) or the denial of Jesus as the Way.  ++Shori has new status within the AC, and a platform.  The votes don’t exist in the AC to do anything more, and the AOC’s own views are now fully exposed for the world to see.

As I said before, this is a victory for the non-ACN Camp Allen Dioceses, since one of their Bishops will likely gain status and a special relationship with some of the the other “Windsor” Dioceses. If I was committed to the Episcopal Church in one of these Dioceses I would probally like it.  I just look through this with a different lense. I have already given up my church buildings and assets and security, and thus don’t have that looming over me like the Sword of Damocles.  When I see all of the things that need to be done through the church in our communities, and all the things that need to be done to bring new people into the fold in my church and elsewhere, I realize that we are now at a point where this is a distraction with no end in sight.

[323] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 10:41 PM • top

Katie didn’t get tarred and feathered, so I am a bit disappointed. All in all this looks fairly good to me. “Encroachment” seems too much pilloried, but when TEC thumbs its nose and continues same sex blessings, and it most assuredly will, let the crossings begin in earnest.

[324] Posted by via orthodoxy on 02-19-2007 at 10:47 PM • top

Via Orthodoxy—Integrity is playing their part.  The more they scream, the better anything produced by the HOB or the PB toward the AC looks.

[325] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 10:54 PM • top

“it represents a TOTAL DEFEAT for “traditionalists”.

I hope I’m wrong. “

LP - you are wrong. We won. We are going on to a great victory. Try to join us in this victory march.

[326] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 10:56 PM • top

Gulfstream, don’t see it as caving in. When do you think this ends?  It won’t end with the Bishops report in Sept., it won’t end with the next Lambeth (with Schori attending) and it won’t even end at the next General Convention

Timothy, how many years did it take us to get into the hole we have been in? There is no easy fix, no instant cure. But now there *is* a chance. Before today, I was afraid that there was none.

[327] Posted by oscewicee on 02-19-2007 at 11:01 PM • top

Guys,
This report is the product of the miraculous hand of God.  Let’s give Him the honor due.  This war was won in heavenly places.  Can we all take a moment to acknowledge this truth?  I’m not sure if it was overreading.  I do know it WAS the hand of God.

Matt,
You are right on the money with regard to the new province.  As I read this schedule, I find it very difficult that the GC will go along with what the Primates have requested.  They will try to fudge but between now and September, we will learn what TEC’s commitment to complying will be.  I bet that Rowan effectively paid them lip service with the sub-group report, knowing that at the end of Tanzania, the sub-group report would be rejected.  The Primates would then basically lay out the demands of the schedule which basically says TEC, comply in the next year or walk.  I’m betting TEC will not comply and will walk, opening the way for the province.  This will indeed happen. 

While many of us were fixated on disciplining TEC, I think the AC approach was more “we’re gonna let you discipline yourself.  You will decide if you want the punishment.  You TEC will decide if you want to stay by complying or walk”

[328] Posted by richardc on 02-19-2007 at 11:03 PM • top

Oscewicee-articulate the chance you reference.

[329] Posted by Going Home on 02-19-2007 at 11:03 PM • top

Gayle said…

“The fact that KJS was received as a Primate when she has openly espoused heretic, non-Christian beliefs is worse than 100 Gene Robinson.  Remember it only took one Bishop Pike and one Bishop Spong to get us to where we are today.

God forgive me for whatever error or arrogance within which I might speak, but I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, that the cause of Christ, His Kingdom and his Holy Church would have been better served if there had been a split of the AC today.”

AMEN!!!

The time of decision is at hand. Choose this day who you will serve.

If you truly believe that your mission is to reform an apostate church, then by all means believe that this communique and the draft covenant will change anything, stay in ECUSA and use your finite resources to continue to tilt with windmills. Don Quixote will be proud of you.

If on the other hand you belive that your mission is to obey the commision we have all received from of our Lord and Saviour, preaching the Gospel, making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you must choose to leave, NOW.

Personally I would have a hard time recommending that anyone be baptized into the apostate church that ECUSA has become.

Regards, Conrad

[330] Posted by Conrad on 02-19-2007 at 11:09 PM • top

Can you imagine how KJS feels as the realization hits her that she signed onto a document that is already being reported in the liberal press as disciplining TEC and demanding compliance with Anglican sexual teaching?  She’s gonna have a lot of explaining to do.  Just visit the revisionists blogs—Susan Russell’s, The Anglican Scotist, Fr Jake ... Some are already demanding that TEC reply “NO” and go their own way sans the AC.

[331] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 11:13 PM • top

Sarah, Greg, Matt

You guys rock!  Thanks for SF.  What a blessing this has been.

[332] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 11:16 PM • top

Sarah, Greg, Matt

You guys rock!

*koff*

*koff koff*

wink

[333] Posted by David Ould on 02-19-2007 at 11:23 PM • top

Oh, and David too!!!

[334] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 11:26 PM • top

Oh, and Kendall, and ...

[335] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-19-2007 at 11:26 PM • top

“I have not yet heard (did I miss it?) from the reappraisers who will surely declaim, “The Communique is impossible because it violates TEC polity!”
and then will go on to cite the chapter and verse of the canons to prove their point. “

It is going to be interesting to see what the TEC polity has to say in the morning, after their latte and phone calls back and forth.  The development of open and responsive blogs opens all activity to the entire AC, with quick analysis and response.  I think that TEC has allowed themselves to be placed in a new position of scrunity and have drug the ABC along with them as a seatmate on their Titanic.  If the legal activity is not withdrawn or delayed, or if there is any ownership fued over the Primatial Vicar, it will immediately be known to all of the AC and action initiated.  I read the Communique to say that interventions are on hold, unless clearly needed.  Thus we have real solid ground for a chance at having a real communion and a real Anglican Brotherhood.

[336] Posted by Brother LeRoy on 02-19-2007 at 11:33 PM • top

Brer Rabbit,

“The Communique is impossible because it violates TEC polity!”  You should have read the HoB/D list as soon as the shcedule et al were released.  They went ballistic!  There is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth all over HobDee and the blogs of the more Worthy Opponents.  Not thta I wish any hard feellings, but, what goes around does come around.

[337] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 02-19-2007 at 11:43 PM • top

Gayle,
Your pain is palpable. I am very sorry.

[338] Posted by Gulfstream on 02-19-2007 at 11:46 PM • top

Do you think +Maryland regrets his letter yet?

[339] Posted by recusant on 02-20-2007 at 12:09 AM • top

This is neither whining nor freakout.  But Jason and Chazzy are wrong.  815 has won.  Does anyone honestly think 815 will not be able to find a way of weasel-wording around any of this?  Does anyone think that if there is any such part, they won’t simply ignore it?  Having seen the way one short meeting with 815 had +Lee abandon nearly a year’s work on the Protocol, for example, does anyone think there is any actual spine left among the waverers in the HoB?  Does anyone, having witnessed GC03 and GC06, still think there is the slightest possibility of ECUSA paying any attention at all to the _Primates?  Does anyone think that this two-TEC-815-puppets, two-wavering-Primates, one-ABC-rep-vetted-by-Kearon Council will do anything constructive in less than the timeframe of the Eschaton?  At best, it will be useless; at worst, it will be another weapon of 815 against faithful parishes and dioceses.

815 got time and more maneuvering room.  The _Primates got, at best, empty promises and cathartic rhetoric.  The good guys were rolled by Kearon and the ACO.  How, precisely, is this statement, even in its most Harrumpf! sections, different in any noticeable respect from the repeated statements of the _Primates and other Instruments of Communion for a decade before GC03

And of course the _Revisionist mouthpieces will whine; they always do and will continue to do so long after GC declares heterosexism a defrocking offense.  But they got what they wanted: more process.

This was a last chance for the _Primates and the ABC to actually do something about the situation in North America.  They blew it.  They were conned into treating ECUSA as an actual church instead of the purely political cancer on Anglican Christianity it has become.

[340] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 02-20-2007 at 01:06 AM • top

Goodrich, well put.

[341] Posted by Going Home on 02-20-2007 at 01:53 AM • top

From my perspective - We had an apostate church in 2003 that faced NO disciplining from the AC whatsoever, and it looked as if none would be forthcoming.  Now we have an apostate church that is being corralled and soon will be branded as an apostate church if it does not toe the line.  It has taken a long time to get to this point, but with an opponent that is as slippery as an eel, getting it to do what you want takes time and hard work.

Is this the last chapter? No.  Are we moving closer to the finish line? Yes.

[342] Posted by My Two Cents on 02-20-2007 at 06:39 AM • top

My Two Cents - I tend to agree.  The whole crisis has pointed up the fact that there is no real means for discipline in the AC, and that some means is needed (I think we all agree that disinvitation to obscure meetings is not the same as NT church discipline).
The articulation of a theological covenant (a big missing piece if discipline is to mean something more than revocation of club membership) will take time, but the perceived need for this and movement toward it are positive developments in our common life.
Time also helps us work on communicating our identity to the world.  We see how many press reports are treating the issue as some kind of LGBT hiring practices issue.  The development of the covenant and its attendant discipline says to the world, “Anglicanism is about the kingdom of God.”  And that is not unlike the Oxford Movement in saying, “The Church’s reference points are not just the passing things of national culture.”

[343] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-20-2007 at 06:53 AM • top

Well, as long as we’re looking at cartoons, remember the old Far Side?

What the _Primates say:  The Communique

What 815 hears:

“Blah, blah, to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, blah, the Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, blah, blah our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention, blah, blah, interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, have exacerbated this situation, blah blah lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church blah blah, reconciliation in the Church of Christ, blah, encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church [keep giving us money], blah blah value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made blah, no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church, no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church, no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church.

[344] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 02-20-2007 at 09:44 AM • top

Check the deeds. How many properties show 815 2nd avenue as owner of the property?

[345] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-20-2007 at 10:07 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.