English bishops back Duncan over warning letter

THE BISHOPS of Chester, Chichester, Exeter, and Rochester issued a statement on Tuesday in support of the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, after the warning letter sent to him by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori.

She wrote to Bishop Duncan on Wednesday of last week, asking him to lead his diocese "on a new course that recognises the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes" (see above).

If his course did not change, she wrote, "I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church . . . and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action."

The English bishops' statement, which was instigated by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, read: "We deeply regret the increase in the atmosphere of litigiousness revealed by the Presiding Bishop's letter to Bishop Duncan. At this time, we stand with him and with all who respond positively to the Primates' Dar es Salaam requests. We hope the Archbishop's response to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida will also apply to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh."

The Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster, said on Tuesday that the statement gave personal support to Bishop Duncan. He described the Presiding Bishop's letter as "aggressive, inappropriate, and unfortunate". "They are acting as if it is the OK Corral. This is the North American culture: it is a managerial rather than a pastoral approach."

Dr Forster emphasised that issuing the statement did not imply support for decisions taken at the Pittsburgh diocesan convention.

4 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

And yet +Rowan is still silent! Amazing! Everybody else in the world is responding but +Rowan is .....Silent!

I just wonder what kind of pact was really made….?

[1] Posted by TLDillon on 11-08-2007 at 09:12 PM • top

I don’t understand it—we have had all this news over the last 24 hours—the Presiding Bishop announcing her intention to take charges against three bishops; a communique from a significant group of international church leaders; and now the announcement by Southern Cone, and yet there is not one word, NOT ONE WORD of this on either the ENS site (which says it gives NEWS).

According to them the top story of the moment is:
“Honoring Absalom Jones’ legacy, nation’s first black Episcopal church celebrates 215 years’
and the next most important one is:
“On the road in Vermont with the Presiding Bishop”

[2] Posted by MargaretG on 11-08-2007 at 10:42 PM • top

ODC—++Williams is silent because CoE is as divided as we are and any move will upset someone. The ABC current hope seems to be in just holding the whole together until he out of office, he not so much leading as reacting as this whole thing is overtaking Such as four bishops willing to make a public statement about something in another province.

I’d say this is huge in it’s own way. Now evidence of some of the items a family cleric in CoE has mentioned been under the surface for some time now coming to the surface where we can see it across the pond.

Thank you +Chester, +Chichester, +Exeter, and +Rochester!!

[3] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-09-2007 at 06:15 AM • top

This is good, but I wish that the Bishop of Chester hadn’t qualified his statement , saying that it didn’t necessarily support decisions taken at the Pittsburgh convention. He made it clear his support was personal, for Bishop Duncan.

[4] Posted by Nellie on 11-09-2007 at 12:37 PM • 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.