Dear Archbishop Williams,

You will soon receive - or may have already received - a request from a relatively small group of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States that you appoint a commissary (or Alternative Primatial Oversight) for disaffected dioceses in this country. Apparently, they believe that such an action would in some manner remove these dioceses and bishops from the actions of General Convention and the leadership of the Presiding Bishop and, instead, give them a tie to your office or place themselves under your authority.

We believe the requests to be illegal. Our Constitution and Canons do not allow for overseas oversight or alternative jurisdictional authority over any diocese in this country. The question of whether the Church of England could assign commissaries to function in America was settled back in 1789.

In addition, many of these same bishops, now allied with a number of foreign bishops, will request that you affirm the existence of an alternative ecclesiastical jurisdiction in America. Such a jurisdiction, at least in outline, now exists. Clearly the bishops seek from you legitimation for these blatantly secessionist activities. To grant their request would constitute a reward for these actions and legitimate the break-up of the Church.

We, the Steering Committee of The Episcopal Majority, write to urge you to refuse these requests.

We believe these requests are motivated by the longstanding wish of a small number of American bishops to expel the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. We find the actions of these bishops to be deceitful, disruptive and harmful and urge you to reject their requests.

Another course has always been open to these bishops and others of a like mind: they could simply leave the Episcopal Church. Such a departure falls fully within the American religious tradition. Ordinarily, conscience has dictated such separations in the past and these separations have been accomplished with integrity. We urge you to encourage this course of action upon them, as we have done. It is certainly a more honorable course than remaining in the Church and continuing to cause bitterness and rancor.

Yours in Christ,

The Rev. William R. Coats
Ms. Lisa Fox
The Rev. David Fly
Ms. Judy Matthews
The Rev. Richard Tombaugh
Ms. Adrienne Fly
The Rev. Mark Harris
Mr Robert Smith, Esq
The Rev. Tom Woodward

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

Comments:

Greg—For the sake of Stand Firm readers in Lambeth Palace, it might be helpful to footnote the miniscule size of this group calling itself “The Episcopal Majority.” Recently you cited the website monitoring TEM regarding the turnout at their national conference—150. I poked around the site and found the count of their total membership at around 300 with nearly half clergy.

According to their own material, the group originated from a gathering of former Episcopal university chaplains from the 60s and 70s. Just close your eyes and imagine that scenario. I hope Lambeth Googles the name of this elitist bunch and puts them in perspective. To save trouble, they could click on the following:

http://episcopalmajority.com/?p=10
http://episcopalmajority.com/?p=37

[1] Posted by Gator on 11-20-2006 at 10:07 AM • top

The TEC Constitution and Canons also require that the TEC be a member of the Anglican Communion. How can TEC maintain its membership if it does not teach what the Anglican Communion teaches? Soon we may see that the Episcopal “majority” is actually a very small minority of the whole Anglican body.

[2] Posted by GB on 11-20-2006 at 10:08 AM • top

Re: ” It is certainly a more honorable course than remaining in the Church and continuing to cause bitterness and rancor.”

My Most Favorite Line!!! ; > )

“Please, please, please . . . make them leave, Mr. ABC!!! We’ve been hoping for their departure for the past three years . . . “

; > )

[3] Posted by Sarah on 11-20-2006 at 10:13 AM • top

Help me to understand this letter. Did the group known as “Anglican Majority” actually write and send such a letter, or did someone forge it in order to embarrass them? Or did Greg Griffith just write this as a spoof to entertain the readers of SF? I honestly don’t get it. As a post-AC Anglican (and blessedly so since 1977, per Dei misericordiam), I don’t always grasp the stuff you people write. Break it down for me, please.

[4] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 11-20-2006 at 10:21 AM • top

I don’t think the Episcopal “Majority” say too much about size given the grand total of 150 people who showed up for their first conference.

[5] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-20-2006 at 10:39 AM • top

“We believe the requests to be illegal. Our Constitution and Canons do not allow for overseas oversight or alternative jurisdictional authority over any diocese in this country.” Are they now threatening the ABC with the canons of ECUSA? Will they be presenting him for discipline should he step out of line? Perhaps a sharp letter from Chancellor Beers to Lambeth will set things on their proper course.
Or perhaps, since ECUSA likes its independence, the ABC can do what is best and right (and I do not know what he thinks that is) and ECUSA can exercise its independence by acting in accord or not.

[6] Posted by pendennis88 on 11-20-2006 at 10:40 AM • top

“Clearly the bishops seek from you legitimation for these blatantly secessionist activities. To grant their request would constitute a reward for these actions and legitimate the break-up of the Church.”

Well, this “blatant secessionist” and his family will vote on December 10 at Truro to disaffiliate with ECUSA and its “small number of American” members who illegitimately call themselves a ‘majority’.

Let’s see: TEM national meeting draws 150. Compare this to Plano South/East drawing 2,000 - 3,000 each and the Hope and a Future conference drawing at least 2,000 to Pittsburgh - from all over the world!

Bye-Bye ECUSA. May you come to your senses and return someday.

[7] Posted by GrandpaDino on 11-20-2006 at 10:41 AM • top

Laurence,

Not sure how to answer that. The link in the main post takes you to the site of an organization calling itself the “Episcopal Majority,” which claims to have really sent that letter to Archbishop Williams. It’s definitely a “joke,” but it’s not a “joke,” if you see what I mean. They appear sincerely to believe that the archbishop is actually going to entertain the notion of asking conservatives, not liberals, to leave.

[8] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-20-2006 at 10:46 AM • top

From the “All the Usual Suspects Department”:

Please note the signatories of this ill-conceived missive.

I rest my case.

the snarkster returns

[9] Posted by the snarkster on 11-20-2006 at 11:10 AM • top

Our laws expressly and unequivocally preclude any action to meet the demands of this rag-tag rabble. Do not indulge their uppishness, lest you incur Our Extreme Displeasure.

Majestically yours,
George III
Ivan IV
Louis XIV
Nicholas I
Pere Ubu

[10] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-20-2006 at 11:36 AM • top

In Our recent epistle, we cautioned against indulging the demands of a certain “rag-tag rabble,” by which term We refer to those insolent prelates demanding so-called “alternative primatial oversight.” These impudent demands are patently illegitimate, seditious, and scandalous. We command their misguided authors to desist from such folly and to apply themselves diligently to the study of Our statutes, ordinances, edicts, and decrees. Should they desire Us ever again to entertain their petitions, they shall henceforth ensure that those petitions comply most punctiliously with the letter and spirit of Our aforesaid statutes, ordinances, edicts, and decrees.

Their Majesties
/ss/

[11] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-20-2006 at 12:01 PM • top

Every time I think the revisionists could not possibly rise to greater heights of hubris and puerile petulance, something like this comes along. What does it say about the intellectual level at which members of this outfit are functioning that they seriously believe that wagging their finger in the face of the ABC in a fit of pique is going to influence him to act as they wish?

[12] Posted by William R. Hurt on 11-20-2006 at 12:22 PM • top

This would be the REAL link to the Episcopal Majority for those NOT seeking or wishing to indulge in a FALSE sense of reality:

http://episcopalmajorityonline.org/joola/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=8

[13] Posted by Leonardo Ricardo on 11-20-2006 at 02:48 PM • top

So, how about sending ++Rowan Williams a letter of our own? Circulate through Stand Firm, then for safe measure to T19 and then Drell’s and BabyBlue and MCJ and yes, even VirtueOnline.

I dare say that we could pick up many more signors.

[14] Posted by Gayle on 11-20-2006 at 03:12 PM • top

Gayle:

how about sending ++Rowan Williams a letter of our own?

Why dignify it with any response at all?

[15] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 11-20-2006 at 03:24 PM • top

Would the 150 attendees be 75 clergy and the remaining members of their respective churches?

[16] Posted by thehymnistscousin on 11-20-2006 at 04:19 PM • top

This isn’t the only letter they’ve composed. If you look through the site, you’ll see this one to Archbishop Gomez, and also this one to Archbishop Williams, complaining ABOUT Archbishop Gomez. (I note that Williams didn’t reply to this November 9 letter, so I don’t know if he’s any more likely to take notice of the present one.) I think The Episcopal Majority is carving out a niche for themselves as the indefatigable “Yours, disgusted” letter-writer of the Anglican Communion.

[17] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 11-20-2006 at 04:30 PM • top

Rich, you missed my point. The point is not to respond to their letter at all, the point is to officially send ++Rowan a letter from clergy and lay orthodox expressing what we believe. State how we believe that the entire GenCon, Canons and Constution process within TEC to be inherently flawed. That it is not representative of the rank and file of many churches within TEC. Talk about the spiritual violence visited upon the laity by priests being schooled by seminaries that no longer teach the faith as delivered to the apostles.

Besides, sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. Read C.S. Lewis’s Perelandra.

[18] Posted by Gayle on 11-20-2006 at 04:37 PM • top

+++Williams’s job descripton is largely to act as a theological, administrative adviser to the Communion and other three Instruments of Unity. If Episcopal Majority had better knowledge of protocol, they would have addressed their request to the Primates’ Meeting.

Boy, it’s a real big fat hairy deal for anyone to deign violating Episcopal constitutions and canons…what about those who violate Anglican doctrine, Reports, and Resolutions? THEY must be REALLY terrible…

But, I forgot—the sun doesn’t rise and set on Christ, it rises and sets on the Episcopal church.

I’d also remind the constituents of Episcopal “Majority” that the issue of boundary-crossing was largely clarified by the Primates’ Communique/Dromantine, which noted and permitted it.

[19] Posted by Orthoducky on 11-20-2006 at 04:40 PM • top

If it’s time for every one to take it to the archbishop - why don’t we? Why don’t we write to him? Why don’t we write to the “presiding bishop” as well. We’re just a small few. Maybe it would help her to visualize these dust motes in her eyes if we wrote her a letter and told her why we are Anglicans. Maybe it would help her to see why she is not.

[20] Posted by oscewicee on 11-20-2006 at 04:57 PM • top

Maybe we will be blessed. Maybe they will so tick off the ABC with their ridiculous letters he will tell them and TEC to pack their bags and get lost (physically, that is-unfortunately, they are already lost spiritually-may God have mercy on them)!

cannyscot

[21] Posted by cannyscot on 11-20-2006 at 09:30 PM • top

Between PB Schori and these folks,somewhere some English bookie’s laying odds that they don’t make it in the Communion til Thanksgiving

[22] Posted by paddy on 11-20-2006 at 09:48 PM • top

Sorry Gayle, I think I did see your point (that’s what I meant by “response”) but didn’t express myself as well as “cannyscot” did. (Also I didn’t mean my comment to be dismissive and apologize if that’s how it came across.) I give ++Rowan credit for taking an overwrought letter from a self-proclaimed “majority” to be every bit as annoying as we do—more smoke than fire—and for not being as much in the dark as “TEM” would like to think he is.
After reading the Global South Steering Committee’s report I think they will be much more effective in pressing our case in their meeting with ++Rowan (later this month, it’s rumored) than a “me too” letter would be. In terms of fighting fire with fire, I would use an analogy something like this—
“TEC” : GS Primates :: BiC lighter : flamethrower

God’s peace ...

[23] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 11-20-2006 at 11:32 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.