First, a letter has just been released by the dioceses of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth: this copy is on the NACDAP site; another copy is on the Pittsburgh site. Fort Worth has a PDF showing the original letterhead.
Bishops Decline Invitation to Second Summit
Released by The Diocese of Fort Worth on November 27, 2006:
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, and the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, have declined an invitation from the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia, to attend a second Summit Meeting of bishops requesting Alternate Primatial Oversight with the Presiding Bishop and two co-conveners, Bishop Lee and the Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida. In fact, none of the bishops of those dioceses that have requested APO will be attending. The proposed meeting was scheduled to begin today. The first Summit, convened at the request of the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, was held in September at the offices of the Church Pension Group in New York City. Bishop Iker enumerated the reasons for the decision in a reply he sent to Bishop Lee on Tuesday, Nov. 21, on behalf of Bishop Duncan and himself.
Full text of the letter is here.
Second, there are reports at Fr Jake of Bp. Schofield’s Deanery Presentations. An extract:
Regarding the meeting of the Windsor bishops, Bp. Schofield claims they received a message from Archbishop Rowan Williams containing these words; ” I believe the Windsor bishops are the hope of the future of the American church. I want to encourage you and I pray that your numbers will grow.”
Regarding the recent meeting with the Steering Committee of the Global South Primates, Bp. Schofield offers us some new information. Abps. Gomez (West Indies), Venables (Southern Cone), Akinola (Nigeria), Chew (South East Asia), Nzimbi (Kenya) and Akrofi (West Africa) were present. Those representing the Network that were mentioned by name included Bps. Schofield, Salmon and Duncan and Bill Thompson of All Saints, Long Beach.
The Primates were asking for specific things of the Network;
1. Unity
2. A single spokesman (Bp. Duncan was selected)
3. Signatures on a document which will be submitted to the Primates (all present signed, although the contents of the document were not revealed.)Bp. Schofield announced that he had received a message from Bp. Duncan stating that the Primates (apparently the 6 listed above) said that they endorsed what was being proposed in San Joaquin, encouraged them to go forward with their plan to make the changes in their constitution (which eliminates all references to The Episcopal Church), but then the Primates said not to have an immediate second reading. They do not want San Joaquin to get ahead of the other dioceses. (The constitutional changes do not technically go into effect until the second reading).
According to Bp. Schofield, the Primates want to see a new Network Province set up, but not just with San Joaquin as a member. They want a number of dioceses represented. The Primates want to see San Joaquin unified with other dioceses, and willing to take direction from them. From this point on, the Primates would call the shots. San Joaquin was to go forward with the first reading and then await further instructions from the Global South Primates.
Third, Lionel Deimel has written this analysis: Unqualified Accession which deals with the question How might a diocese rationalize a right to abrogate its accession to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church?
And for your convenience the Chapman memo is here.
More of Fr. Jakes blog: “Regarding the meeting of the Windsor bishops, Bp. Schofield claims they received a message from Archbishop Rowan Williams containing these words; “I believe the Windsor bishops are the hope of the future of the American church. I want to encourage you and I pray that your numbers will grow.”” Of course this is double hearsay and the rest is (single :-)) hearsay, but it would be nice if someone could dig up ++Rowan’s exact statement. ++Rowan’s suposed pro-Network statement, when put in print, turned out to be quite different from what had been mooted about.… Read more »
remember – it is not the network which has hijacked and ruined the current ABCs time in office………..
others make his life much harder: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=546
We need to make a distinction, too, between the meeting of “Windsor-compliant bishops” in Texas, and gatherings of Network bishops. There was some comment by the Archbishop about that gathering; but at least half of the bishops in that meeting have expressed no interest in leaving The Episcopal Church. The possibility of seeing hope in a loyal opposition is very different from seeing hope in a schismatic splinter. I think that may be the quotation to dig up. I think Bishop Schofield may well be taking things out of context.
NP, it’s disingenuous to assert that election of the new Presiding Bishop has some created a new level of schism; she is simply taking the words of the vocal minority in the Episcopal Church at face value and challenging them to put up or shut up, to be perfectly rude about it. I, for one, appreciate the clarity, since I’ve lost my taste for the “Anglican fudge” that has heretofore been the steady diet of all parties in this hubbub. The scenario has gone like this for some years: REASSERTERS: The Episcopal Church is a demon’s nest of pansexualist heretics.… Read more »
When did anti-modern become a “range” NP?
“Bishops Decline Invitation”
So, *at long last*, can we finally ALL understand just WHO is “walking apart”??? 🙁
The campaign for Anglican realignment, aka the new conserved effort to split (aka purify aka conform) the worldwide communion is well afoot. The main players are overtly united by their profound negativities towards queer folks. But really: Exactly how far will that get them? Many of us are all watching, listening, laughing at times, bemused at other times, praying. God rules, inside and outside the churches. By loving. Unto resurrection. Just keep following Jesus of Nazareth the best you know how. The sorting will come clearer over time, and even then it will not be finished. Progressive religious people are… Read more »
William – I think KJS is just more honest about her agenda than some others…….but while you seem clear about what you think the “minority” in TEC should do, you do not apply the same logic to TEC as a minority in the Anglican Communion, do you? The good news is that KJS does seem to want to create “TEC Global” – which is great! I hope she takes all the “liberal” churches in England – they are very expensive to subsidise as they shrink year on year, “building” on their decades of failed ideas. JCF – those walking apart?… Read more »
Dear NP: “I hope she takes all the “liberal” churches in England – they are very expensive to subsidise as they shrink year on year, “building” on their decades of failed ideas.” You do seem to post rather frequently about the financial advantages of getting rid of the rest of us. Does anyone out there with a sociology background have access to information about any correlation between areas of ‘material blessing’ and the dominant theology of the local Christians? I ask this because of the five staunchly evangelical churches of which I know, only one is in a deprived area,… Read more »
Mynsterpreost, this so-called “prosperity gospel” is commonly heard in evangelical or charismatic churches on this side of the pond, and I understand it’s also popular in Nigeria. The converse of the prosperity gospel is a snide, hard-hearted dismissal of invitations to human solidarity, as if anyone who suffered deserved it. I had a friend who grew up in one of these denominations. She was taught in her youth that the expression “There, but for the grace of God, go I” means: “Because I am specially deserving of God’s grace and blessings, I do not suffer as those less worthy do.”… Read more »
William,
Wonderful! You nailed the gestalt of the situation perfectly!
Thanks SO much for the laugh this afternoon! I almost spit my cup of tea all over my keyboard 😉 (well, OK… it was a Starbuck’s Chai Latte, but you get the idea)
NP, while I would prefer to see all parties remain under the broad tent of the Episcopal Church as a province of the Anglican Communion, regrettably I see that as a vanishingly small possibility. So it is my preference that those who feel they cannot in good conscience remain in and support the Episcopal Church leave and that TEC treat them graciously as they do. I am told that issues of eternal salvation are at stake, yet the bold rhetoric seems to founder on the rocks of property and prestige. To the extent that TEC can remove these stumbling blocks,… Read more »
{sigh} NP, numbers matter—sort of. To the extent they are reflected in DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES, in canonically-ordered *electoral* polities, then yes. “95%” of [Some Big Number], pulled out of thin air by you—where the numbers do not originate from canonical electorates ANYWAY—do NOT. TEC’s democratic majority is the former. The AC—as *currently* constituted—is the latter. While the AC *could* result in such a “95%” as you cite (or even a very different percentage, as is my equally worthless hunch), we won’t know until the AC is reconstituted, to be a global *representative democracy*. …but the only way we get there (but… Read more »
dear mynsterpreost – I would dislike false prosperity teaching as much as you…
……but I am sure you have also seen lifeless “ministries” sucking up resources and producing nothing year after year…..but never seeming to change / learn / want to learn.
NP: yes, I know what you mean — but those sorts of ministries are spread across all shades of theological opinion. One can, of course, make definitions which successfully place the dodos in the camp to which I do not belong, but I suspect that pioneering and heroic witness and ministry is going on in all sorts of places, evangelical, catholic, broad and liberal, and in many cases the seed will be growing secretly.
JCF – TEC’s democratic decisions does not have the same authority as the bible….
William – thanks for your message. Personally, I am for a free realignment with all being allowed to take their property and pensions and join TEC or AC. Court battles etc are wrong.
We should at least split graciously if we cannot live together graciously…..
trouble is I do not think “liberals” will in the end be brave enough to go it alone (given they have never been brave enough to do so for the last century)