Dale Rye has written at Covenant under the title What’s Up Down Under?
The recent decision of the Diocesan Synod of Sydney, in the Anglican Church of Australia, to allow the administration of Holy Communion—i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist—by deacons and eventually laity seems outlandish to many overseas Anglicans. It makes considerably more sense within the context of Australian Anglicanism, which has a very different history than The Episcopal Church (TEC) and its various offshoots (I will get to that later). Australian Anglicanism is exceptionally diverse as a result of that history, and its diversity has led the Anglican Church of Australia to adopt a unique pattern of organization.
Just as some Episcopalians are frustrated when other Anglicans cannot understand TEC’s particular form of synodical governance, so I expect Australians feel when outsiders try to apply their own context to matters Down Under. I write the following as an American outsider, but one who has long been fascinated enough by the local variations on the common Anglican theme to make a study of them. (I hope that any Australians who read this will take the trouble to correct my inevitable mistakes by commenting below…)
Note: Dale Rye has added a substantial update to his original article.
Andrew McGowan who is Warden of Trinity College, the University of Melbourne, has written Power and Presiding: The Reality of “Lay Administration”.
The Diocese of Sydney’s reaffirmation, at its recent Synod, of lay presidency (or as many of its leaders prefer, “lay administration”) at the Holy Communion has had Anglicans around the world again wondering what we are putting in the (increasingly scarce!) water down here.
Sydney’s motives are quite unlike the occasional stirrings in this direction voiced on the liberal edge of US or British churches. The original theological engine driving this is the theology of Church and sacraments taught by former Moore College principal Broughton Knox, and now pursued by his students including key figures in the Sydney episcopal leadership and the present staff of Moore. Some of these, like their “Reform” counterparts in the UK, see the Reformation as an incomplete work and the Elizabethan settlement as a bit of a Laodicean compromise. The real interest in “lay administration” lies, for them, in carrying through a principled protestant disposal of catholic accretions upon a supposed New Testament model of ministry and worship.
There are links to other comments here.
21 CommentsEpiscopal Life Online has a lengthy article, with some historical background at AUSTRALIA: Sydney diocese votes for lay and diaconal presidency — again.
Bishop Alan Wilson has commented on this subject on his blog, see Lay Presidency: 2 heads better than 1.
48 CommentsContradictory signals from down under, driven by gross ecclesiological revisionism about Eucharistic Lay Presidency. I’m confused, anyway, about the news from Sydney. The fatuous notion that “this will make the diaconate a real diaconate” demonstrates simple but complete ignorance of Catholic order. In those terms all the Sydney innovators’ proposals would do is make deacons, functionally, priests. This would obviously tend to obscure distinctively diaconal ministry. The C of E meets pastoral need from within a traditional understanding of Church, by authorizing Extended Communion. Cursing in fluent Kangaroo, as Dr Doolittle called it, is a non-traditional sport…
Updated Sunday evening
Muriel Porter reports in the Church Times that Sydney votes for diaconal and lay presidency.
SYDNEY DIOCESAN SYNOD has affirmed that deacons — including women deacons — may preside at holy communion.
In a motion moved by a Sydney regional bishop, Dr Glenn Davies, the synod accepted arguments that there was no legal impediment to deacons’ presiding, given that, under a 1985 General Synod canon, deacons are authorised to assist the priest in the administration of the sacraments.
A report accompanying the motion argued that, because deacons can administer the sacrament of baptism “in its entirety”, and because “no hierarchy of sacraments is expressed in describing the deacon’s role of assisting the presbyter,” deacons are therefore authorised to “administer the Lord’s Supper in its entirety”.
Bishop Davies told the Synod that the Archbishop could not prevent a deacon’s “administering the Lord’s Supper”. But the motion, though it also affirmed lay presidency, could not approve lay people’s presiding at Sunday services, as the Archbishop would need to license them, Bishop Davies said. “The Archbishop will not license a lay person at this time.”
This reluctance is believed to relate to Sydney’s relationship with the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) bishops…
There is also a report of this on the Sydney Anglicans website Sydney restates Lord’s Supper position.
90 CommentsSydney Synod has overwhelmingly restated its principled support for lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper.
More significantly – in what supporters said is ‘a great outcome’ for women deacons – the motion also ‘accepts’ the argument that there is no longer any legal impediment to deacons officiating at Holy Communion given the wording of The Ordination Service for Deacons Canon 1985 and the repeal of the 1662 Act of Uniformity by a recent General Synod Canon.
However the motion itself does nothing to change the legal situation.
“We don’t make law or change law in a motion,” said the Bishop of North Sydney, Glenn Davies, in moving the motion “we merely express our view.”
The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church passed a number of resolutions at its recent meeting relating to the issues raised by the recent and anticipated actions of some dioceses in aligning with the Southern Cone.
There is a comprehensive report Executive Council promises support, money to continuing Episcopalians by Mary Frances Schjonberg at Episcopal Life.
The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council October 23 renewed its ongoing support of dioceses in which the leadership has left or plans to leave the church, and pledged the church to seek reconciliation “without precondition on our part.”
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told council members that she appreciated their sense that irreconcilable differences are inconsistent with the gospel. “It is profoundly unchristian and unhopeful to say that differences can be irreconcilable,” she said…
There is also a report Executive Council Wants Dialogue with Common Cause Partnership by Doug LeBlanc at the Living Church.
Executive Council has called for a reconciliation-oriented conversation with members of Common Cause Partnership, according to the two top officials of The Episcopal Church. They spoke to members of the media Oct. 23 during a brief conference call at the conclusion of the council’s four-day meeting in Helena, Mont.
The council approved a resolution from its Committee for National Concerns, said Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies. Mrs. Anderson said the resolution is based on council’s belief that talk of irreconcilable differences is a contradiction of the Christian gospel.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said she was expressing nothing new when she said earlier in the week that she would “strongly discourage” General Convention from voting on a final form of the proposed Anglican Covenant in July 2009, if the final draft is released in May 2009. She said she has made the same remark for several weeks in various locations, and that she has not encountered any resistance to her plans…
Also, there is a report about: Bishop to Advise Pittsburgh Episcopalians.
The Rt. Rev. David Colin Jones, the bishop suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, has accepted an invitation from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to serve as a “consulting bishop” as it rebuilds.
Bishop Jones will provide the Pittsburgh diocesan Standing Committee, the current leadership team, with practical advice on the details of diocesan administration, clergy deployment, and support for congregations remaining in the Episcopal Church in the United States…
The Living Church report on this also mentions that:
…In a similar development, the Rt. Rev. Sam B. Hulsey, Bishop of Northwest Texas from 1980 to 1997, confirmed that he has participated in preliminary discussions about serving as the provisional bishop of Fort Worth in the event that the majority of delegates to the annual convention on Nov. 15 votes to leave The Episcopal Church. No formal offer to serve in that capacity had been made yet, he said.
And, from San Joaquin there is a report that Realigning clergy are charged with abandonment of communion. See here for more details.
And also, the Presiding Bishop will visit Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh on Sunday 2 November. Read more details of this in their latest newsletter here (PDF).
10 CommentsGiles Fraser asks in the Church Times Why don’t humanists give value to humans?
Christopher Howse in the Telegraph writes about Peter Howson’s harrowing of hell.
Theo Hobson writes in the Guardian about the sex life of Adam and Eve in Face to Faith.
Stephen Bates asks on Comment is free Who would God vote for?
John Lloyd writes in the Financial Times about Uganda’s controversial pastors.
Earlier in the week, Andrew Brown wrote about The cult of personality.
Simon Barrow wrote a column for Ekklesia titled Beware politicians and ‘God talk’.
11 CommentsUpdated
The Times carries two articles on this:
Should the Church be disestablished? Yes, says Dr Sean Gabb
Should the Church be disestablished? No, says Rt Revd Christopher Herbert
Update Saturday
There is a letter to the editor from Augur Pearce Should Church and State be kept separate?
2 CommentsThe Diocese of London website carries this Statement on the Service at St Bartholomew the Great signed by Bishop Pete Broadbent. (Hat Tip to Ruth Gledhill who has published a fuller version of Martin Dudley’s letter on her blog under the heading Dudley pulls it off! and also wrote about it under a more sedate headline on The Times website as Vicar who performed ‘wedding’ ceremony for two gay clergy expresses regret.)
14 CommentsThe Assistant Bishop of London has issued the following statement regarding the service that took place at St Bartholomew the Great on 31 May.
Dear Colleagues,
I am contacting you all on Bishop Richard’s behalf since, as you know, he is currently away on holiday.
Earlier this year, the Bishop wrote to you regarding a service held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st, which had generated considerable publicity and consternation.
Since this time, under the Bishop’s instructions, the Archdeacon of London has carried out an investigation into the matter, alongside the Chancellor of the Diocese. This has involved a series of frank discussions with the Rector, Revd Dr Martin Dudley.
As a consequence, the Rector has made expressly clear his regret over what happened at St Bartholomew the Great and accepted the service should not have taken place. Bishop Richard has considered the matter and has decided to accept the Rector’s apology in full. The matter is therefore now closed.
To avoid any uncertainty over what has been said, I have enclosed below, with the Rector’s permission, his statement of apology to the Bishop:
“I can now appreciate that the service held at St Bartholomew the Great on 31 May 2008 was inconsistent with the terms of the Pastoral Statement from the House of Bishops issued in 2005. Whilst the precise status of this pastoral document within the Church of England generally and the Diocese of London in particular may be a matter of differing interpretations, I ought to have afforded it far greater weight. I regret the embarrassment caused to you by this event and by its subsequent portrayal in the media. I now recognise that I should not have responded positively to the request for this service, even though it was made by another incumbent of your Diocese, who is a colleague, neighbour and friend of us both nor should I have adopted uncritically the Order of Service prepared by him and his partner. I had not appreciated that the event would have been attended by so many nor that it would have attracted the publicity and notoriety which it did.
“I share your abhorrence of homophobia in all its forms. I am profoundly uneasy with much of the content of the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement which anecdotal evidence suggests is being widely, though discretely, disregarded in this Diocese and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I am willing to abide by its content in the future, until such time as it is rescinded or amended, and I undertake not to provide any form of blessing for same sex couples registering civil partnerships.”
As I say, following the Rector’s full and frank apology, the Bishop considers the matter now closed.
With best wishes and prayers
Pete Broadbent
Assistant Bishop of London
Two articles by George Conger have just been published in places you might not normally look.
The Institute on Religion & Democracy The Seinfeld Conference: A Reflection on Lambeth 2008
The Christian Challenge The Hollow Men—Lambeth 2008, What Happened And Why
8 CommentsEpiscopal News Service reports:
ENGLAND: Archbishop of Canterbury, deposed Pittsburgh bishop meet at Lambeth Palace
27 CommentsArchbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and deposed Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan met privately in London last week.
The Lambeth Palace press office confirmed that the meeting took place on October 15, but would not disclose details of the conversation between Williams and Duncan, saying it was “one of many private meetings” the archbishop hosts at his London residence…
The Covenant Design Group publish today the Lambeth Commentary [PDF], which sets out the responses of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference in their discussions of the St Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant.
The Commentary was complied by the Covenant Design Group at their recent meeting in Singapore and also sets out some of the initial thinking of the CDG in response to the comments of the bishops.
The Commentary has already been sent out to all Provinces to assist in their discernment and response to the St Andrew’s Draft, and encourages Provinces to submit their responses to the St Andrew’s Draft, while contributing to the ongoing thinking on the development of the text.
ACNS spoke to the Chairman of the Design Group, Archbishop Drexel Gomez about the Covenant Process.The full transcript is available here.
The Anglican Covenant section of the ACO website can be found here.
The statistical report can be found here [PDF].
9 CommentsThere has been a lot of material in The Times about this.
Alice Thomson and Rachel Sylvester interviewed Phil Woolas on 18 October. At the very end, he is reported thus:
But he also warns Christians that they need to be more accepting of other faiths. The Church of England will, in his view, be disestablished in the end. “It will probably take 50 years but a modern society is multifaith.”
Rachel Sylvester wrote There’s a God-shaped hole in Westminster. Towards the end, she said:
When Alice Thomson and I interviewed Phil Woolas last week, his comments on immigration hit the headlines – but it was his suggestion that the Anglican Church would be disestablished that got Downing Street in a jitter. The minister’s claim that the link between Church and State would be broken within 50 years because “a modern society is multi-faith” was potential dynamite, with implications for the monarchy, the armed forces and the judiciary as well as Parliament. In fact, Mr Brown has already started to break the link between Church and State – he has given up the power to appoint bishops and is considering a plan to abolish the Act of Settlement, which ensures that only a Protestant can succeed to the throne – but he had hoped to move to the point of disestablishment by stealth.
It would be wrong to suggest that Britain is any longer a Christian country in terms of the population – only 7 per cent of people regularly attend an Anglican church. Yet neither is Britain a secular State like France. Its history, culture and constitutional settlement are based on the link between Church and State. Earlier this year, Nicholas Sarkozy criticised the French republic’s obsession with secularism and called for a “blossoming” of religions. “A man who believes is a man who hopes,” he said. It is ironic that politicians in this country have abandoned belief – at the very moment that the people need hope.
Then, there was this report by Richard Ford and Ruth Gledhill that enlarges on the point. Phil Woolas contradicts government policy over position of Church of England:
Phil Woolas, the new Immigration Minister, was again at the centre of controversy last night after contradicting official government policy over the position of the Church of England.
The outcome of the Government’s attempt to reform the House of Lords would be to strip the Church of its privileges, he said. Within 50 years the Church of England would have lost the special position it has held in English life since the Reformation.
Mr Woolas told The Times: “Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going. Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords you open up debate about the make-up of the House. It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multifaith.”
His remarks caused consternation in Whitehall: the Government has no intention of igniting a political row over the issue, which has consequences for the monarchy…
The Times has also published a leader on this, titled Church and nation. This concludes:
…Disestablishment would in a sense allow the Church of England to be more Christian. Its concerns would be less expansive, and a more distinctive voice might thereby emerge. Whether that is the right course for the Church and for the nation is a conversation worth holding. It should, however, be conducted with an eye to posterity, if not eternity. While a national church might appear an anachronism, changing its status must not be undertaken lightly.
Above all, this is an issue on which the Church itself should deliberate. Politicians have transient authority, whereas the Church has existed for centuries. For a decision that would be irrevocable, there is no need to adopt a timetable.
A sidebar in the Ford/Gledhill article says this:
26 CommentsDisestablishment would put at risk
— The presence of a parish priest for every community
— The right of all, unless there is a separate legal inhibition, to be married, baptised or given a funeral at their parish church
— The Church’s central role in helping the nation to mark important events, such as royal weddings
— The role of the Church as an education provider through church schools
— The public enactment of church legislation. The laws of the Church are part of the laws of England – measures passed by General Synod also need to be passed by Parliament – and therefore the Church’s courts are part of the English legal system
— The role of the Sovereign as supreme governor of the Church
— The role of the Crown in appointing bishops and other senior clergy
— The presence of bishops in the House of Lords – they are not there to protect self-interest but to represent communities in a non-party-political way
Episcopal News Service reports that General Convention should not consider Anglican covenant, Presiding Bishop tells Executive Council:
11 CommentsIf a proposed Anglican covenant is released in mid-May for adoption by the Anglican Communion’s provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will “strongly discourage” any effort to bring that request to the 76th General Convention in July.
Jefferts Schori briefly discussed the covenant process during her remarks to the opening plenary session October 21 on the second of the Executive Council’s four-day meeting in Helena, the seat of the Diocese of Montana.
Anglican Communion provinces have until the end of March 2009 to respond to the current version of the proposed covenant, known as the St. Andrew’s Draft. The Covenant Design Group meets in London in April 2009 and may issue another draft of a covenant. That draft is expected to be reviewed by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) during its May 1-12, 2009 meeting. The ACC could decide to release that version to the provinces for their adoption.
If the ACC decides to do that, “my sense is that the time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I’m therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention,” Jefferts Schori told the Executive Council. “I just think it’s inappropriate to make a decision that weighty” that quickly, she added.
The 76th General Convention meets July 8-17 in Anaheim, California…
In addition to this earlier report, Religious Intelligence has published two more items about the FiF conference, written by Michael Brown.
Traditionalists warn church of evangelism threat:
An extraordinary claim that if traditionalist Anglicans are “destroyed”, the Gospel in England “will suffer” because no one else is evangelising, was issued by the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst, last weekend…
General Synod accused of ‘ignoring the wider church’:
The Church of England’s General Synod was roundly accused by a “flying bishop” last week of being determined to “go against the corporate mind of the Church Catholic”.
The accusation came from the Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Rev Martyn Jarrett, in a sermon at a Mass at St Alban’s, Holborn, for members of Forward in Faith, the traditionalist Anglican body, who were attending their annual assembly in Westminster.
The September issue of New Directions carried this article by Christina Rees titled A mutual challenge:
The result of the debate in General Synod on 7 July should have come as no surprise. The outcome was consistent with how General Synod has repeatedly voted on the subject of opening the episcopate to women. And yet for some, there was surprise, and more than that, a sense of shock, even disbelief…
The Autumn issue of Forward! Plus, available here, has an article on page 3 titled The Women Bishops Vote – An Obituary for Anglo-Catholics? and another article on page 7 which is largely a response to the New Directions article linked above.
3 CommentsRoderick Strange wrote for The Times that We have been beguiled and betrayed by Mammon.
The economy may be in crisis, but there is a wealth of social capital at our disposal, says Pete Tobias in Face to Faith.
Christopher Howse wrote in the Telegraph about The survival of England’s Syon.
Giles Fraser’s column in the Church Times is about The fantasy of easy killing.
Simon Barrow wrote for Ekklesia about Seeking to build a just economy.
George Packer in the New Yorker had a very interesting article about the disaffection of Ohio’s working class. See The Working Vote. It turns out that Andrew Brown also read it, and he comments at Poverty and the sexual marketplace.
34 CommentsUpdated further Wednesday evening
There was a press conference yesterday, at All Souls, Langham Place. You can read all about it at Episcopal Life which has Former Pittsburgh bishop warns Church of England traditionalists against ‘complacency’ written by me.
Toby Cohen of the Church of England Newspaper was also there. His report on Religious Intelligence is titled Deposed Bishop issues warning to Church of England.
Anglican Mainstream has a transcript of part of the press conference, at Bishop Bob Duncan on recognition of new province in North America.
Maria Mackay of Christian Today has Deposed bishop warns traditionalists against ‘illiberal takeover’.
Anglican Mainstream has now added transcripts of further portions of the press conference:
First, his opening statement: Thanks, a report and a warning – Bishop Duncan’s statement to the press.
Second, some of the initial answers to questions: Questions to Bishop Bob Duncan -1: on what could happen in the UK, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Windsor Continuation Group.
Third, more answers to questions: Questions to Bishop Bob Duncan 2:on Sour Grapes, Catholic Order and Martyrdom.
Ruth Gledhill has posted video of part of the conference, see her blog at Bob Duncan: Over-stressed, over here and over?
47 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday afternoon
Reform has been holding its annual conference in Central London.
The programme for the conference is here (PDF).
Reports are coming in.
Ruth Gledhill has written on her blog England’s ‘Pittsburgh’ unfolds as parishes seek new bishop and for The Times she has written Church of England schism over gays.
Martin Beckford has written for the Telegraph that 3,000 Church of England worshippers may defect to overseas provinces, Reform warns.
A large part of Mr Thomas’ speech is reproduced on Ruth’s blog entry.
Updates
Riazat Butt has written for the Guardian Evangelical leader urges Anglicans to break away.
The complete text of the speech by Rod Thomas is now available here.
83 CommentsThe Presidential Address delivered by the Most Rev. Dr. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church, on the opening night of the 2008 diocesan synod can be found here. There are PDF and audio versions as well as the html.
He has quite a lot to say about GAFCON in the second half of the talk. That part starts out:
25 CommentsGAFCON
As I look back over the tumultuous months of June and July – tumultuous for me at least – I am more certain than ever that the path we chose to take as bishops from this Diocese was the right one: it was right to attend the conference in Jerusalem, and it was right to stay away from Lambeth.
I was there when GAFCON was planned. In a hotel room in Nairobi were squeezed Archbishop Nzimbi from Kenya, Archbishop Orombi from Uganda, Archbishop Akinola from Nigeria, Archbishop Mtetemela from Tanzania, Archbishop Kolini from Rwanda. As well there were leaders from England, from the US, from Canada. It was December 2007, late, far too late to plan a major conference, let alone one in Jerusalem.
But we were late for a worthy reason – there had been hope against hope that a solution would be found to the problems in the Anglican Communion. They had placed their hopes in the Archbishop of Canterbury and the usual processes of the Communion. Now they believed that all those hopes had been dashed and there would be no solution offered, apart from more delay. The time had come to act.
Persistent attempts to portray GAFCON as a breakaway movement or an attempt to split the Anglican Communion are perverse, almost malign. The ‘tear in the fabric of the Communion’ occurred in the events of 2003 with the appointment of a divorced and actively homosexual bishop in the United States, and the blessing of same-sex unions in the US and Canada. GAFCON represents a refusal on theological and pastoral grounds to act as though this major division had never taken place.
The Anglican Communion is, I believe, the third largest body of Christians in the world. It is vastly more important than we here often realise. It represents one of the chief ways in which Christians all around the world receive fellowship, missional help, and attention when they are persecuted or in other trouble. It is a highly significant entity, to be cherished and maintained, not torn apart. The aim of GAFCON is to renew and invigorate the Communion and to help bring order and peace out of the mayhem created by the American division…
The Church of Ireland Gazette reports in Inquiry established into Lambeth Conference finances that:
13 CommentsFollowing reports of a £1.2m shortfall in the funding of this year’s Lambeth Conference, the Church of England’s Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners have set up a review, under the independent chairmanship of John Ormerod, a former senior partner of Deloitte, to examine the financial management of the Lambeth Conference.
The team has also been asked to make recommendations regarding the future involvement of the Council and the Board of the Church Commissioners in assisting the financing of meetings of the Lambeth Conference. A spokesman for the Church of England told the Gazette: “The inquiry is due to report back to the Council and the Board early in 2009 with a preliminary report on the financial difficulties and how these arose. A final report, examining the way forward, will be produced in summer 2009. The Council and Board have indicated that the inquiry’s report should be published.” The membership of the inquiry will be: John Ormerod; the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, and Christina Baxter (both Archbishops’ Council); and Timothy Walker, Third Church Estates Commissioner…
Updated Wednesday evening
The Bishop of Fort Worth reports that Clergy Discussions on Conflict Produce No Solution.
…At the same time as these conversations were going on, a group of diocesan officials from Fort Worth were meeting with our counterparts in the Diocese of Dallas to see if a pastoral agreement could be worked out between our two dioceses, whereby parishes in Fort Worth that wanted to remain in TEC could do so as part of the Dallas Diocese. These meetings included the Bishops, Chancellors, Canons to the Ordinary, and Presidents of the Standing Committees of the two dioceses. We came up with a proposal whereby, under certain conditions, Fort Worth parishes and clergy could have “associate membership” in Dallas, including seat, voice and vote at their Convention, and their property could be placed temporarily in the name of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, to be held in trust for their use.
This plan was then presented to the Rectors, Wardens and Chancellors of five Fort Worth parishes that we thought would like to pursue such an arrangement, at least on a trial basis. They were asked to discuss the proposal with their vestries, and then we would meet a second time for further exploration. Unfortunately, at that second meeting, the Chancellor of Dallas reported on conversations he had initiated with the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, David Booth Beers, about the proposal under discussion. Mr. Beers stated that neither the PB nor the General Convention would support such a plan, and without their support, the Fort Worth parishes were unwilling to continue steps to implement the plan…
Update
Episcopal Life Online now has a report by Mary Frances Schjonberg FORT WORTH: Effort to let parishes join Diocese of Dallas fails.
Christianity Today carries an interview by Timothy C. Morgan with the former Bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan.
It is titled The Comeback Bishop.
Some extracts:
13 CommentsDo you have any second thoughts about creation of this new province for conservative Anglicans?
No second thoughts about it. I would have hoped that the Anglican Communion might simply recognize us as the legitimate bearers of the Anglican franchise here. But that’s not likely to happen in the short run. The significance of the Episcopal Church deposing me is much greater than what most people would assume in this battle for a province. For the worldwide Anglican Communion to see me deposed has been absolutely sobering, and even moderates are shocked and stunned by it…
Some conservatives continue to support an Anglican Covenant and the Windsor continuation process as vehicles for reform. Do you hold out much hope for these initiatives?
The covenant is a good concept. Sadly, the form, in which it comes forward, has no great strength to it. A better form of covenant would have been the Thirty-Nine Articles or The Book of Common Prayer. Those have been the things that actually functioned as the covenant for three centuries and more. So the covenant is a useful idea. But as it’s being developed it’s not [useful]. About the Windsor continuation group, the glacial timetable on which it’s working is like every other proposal that’s come from the Anglican Communion office, from the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have been too little and far too slow…
Are you confident that there will be a new province for the North American Anglicans a year from now? And are you the most likely person to be the primate of that province?
The simple answers are yes and yes. I do believe that the Common Cause partners will put everything in place that we need to put in place by Christmas. The time has come. In terms of my leadership I think I understand, and those who put me in this place understand, that in this particular moment my task, my call has been to bring the partners to a place, to the creation of a province and to the beginning of its life, and then I’ll be happy to give it over as soon as it’s clear that I’m not called to do it anymore. We will operate in a way in which the primate of the province is a diocesan bishop, will serve for a term, and may be reelected for a term. Then another will take up that primacy…