The full text of the resolution passed by the Provincial Synod of the Southern Cone of America concerning the welcoming of American Episcopal dioceses can be found here.
A resolution is to be put to the Fort Worth Diocesan Convention as follows:
57 CommentsResolution 2
A Response to the Invitation of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone
Whereas, it is the resolve of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to remain within the family of the Anglican Communion while dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America;
And whereas, the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, meeting Nov. 5-7, 2007, voted to “welcome into membership of our Province on an emergency and pastoral basis” those dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America who share this resolve;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the 25th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth extend its sincere thanks to the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and to its Primate, the Most Reverend Gregory J. Venables, for the generous and fraternal invitation to join their Province;
And, be it further resolved, that the Bishop and Standing Committee prepare a report for this diocese on the constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting this invitation.
The Bishop of Fort Worth has replied to the Presiding Bishop’s recent letter to him.
You can read his reply here.
Episcopal News Service has a detailed report by Jan Nunley, Fort Worth bishop responds to warning letter from Jefferts Schori which sets out the reasons for sending him the earlier letter:
Fort Worth’s diocesan convention meets November 16-17 to consider the first reading of a constitutional amendment that would remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention, as well as several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the Episcopal Church.
Iker has publicly endorsed the changes and declared his intention to separate the Fort Worth diocese from the Episcopal Church.
In an October 20, 2007 address to the Forward in Faith International Assembly in London, a recording of which is available on the group’s website, Iker stated that the three Forward in Faith dioceses — Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy — intend to leave the Episcopal Church by 2009.
“There are three Forward in Faith dioceses in the United States, and the three bishops of those dioceses have come to a common conclusion that we have no future in the Episcopal Church,” Iker reported to the London meeting. “Our conventions in those three dioceses, Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, will be taking constitutional action to separate officially from TEC. Because it is a constitutional change, it must be passed at two successive annual conventions.”
On the recording, Iker continued: “…Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from the Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with an existing orthodox province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along but cannot be announced until the province that is considering our appeal has made their final decision public.”
There is also a Living Church report, Bishop Iker: Presiding Bishop’s Letter ‘Highly Inappropriate’.
31 CommentsUpdated Tuesday
The Washington Times has an article about Virginia: Episcopal dispute hinges on 1860s law by Julia Duin.
The largest property dispute in the history of the Episcopal Church, brought on by divisions over a homosexual bishop, is likely to turn on a Civil War-era Virginia law passed to govern churches splitting during disputes over slavery and secession.
The Rocky Mountain News has an article about Colorado: Diocese turns up heat in lawsuit over schism by Jean Torkelson.
The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado moved Friday to sue individual parishioners who support the breakaway congregation at Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish in Colorado Springs, according to documents filed in El Paso District Court.
The petition asks the court to add 18 people to the diocese’s existing countersuit, which is seeking monetary damages as well as repossession of the church.
The targeted members include everyone on the parish’s governing board as well as the church’s main spokesman, Alan Crippen, and its rector of 20 years, the Rev. Don Armstrong.
We haven’t previously linked to reports of other recent developments in this case. Here are some backfile items:
ENS Bishop deposes former rector Don Armstrong
Living Church Forensic Audit Faults Diocese in Armstrong Investigation
Press releases from the Diocese of Colorado about all this are here.
Update Tuesday
Here is another article about Virginia, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch Episcopal property case goes to trial today.
The following article by Harold Lewis appears in the parish magazine of Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, go here for PDF version.
The New Confederacy
In alleging that there was no canonical impediment to the recent actions of diocesan convention, namely the vote to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan made an appeal to historical precedent. He stated that in 1862, a group of dioceses located in the Confederate states withdrew from the Episcopal Church but that their action did not prompt the Episcopal Church to enact a canon asserting that such an action was illegal. In other words, the bishop interpreted the church’s silence as assent, thereby giving carte blanche to all dioceses, in perpetuity, to separate themselves from TEC, despite their constitutional obligation to remain in communion with it. The bishop’s assertion was problematic on two levels. First, it was a mark of gross insensitivity on his part to hold up the example of the Confederate Episcopal Church, which came into being because it believed it could no longer share a church with those [i.e. Northerners] whose attack on slavery was “treason to the Southern cause.” Moreover, as the Confederate House of Bishops also stated, the Confederate Church believed that the institution of slavery was one of “those sacred relations which God has created, and which man cannot, consistently with Christianity, annul.” Secondly, the bishop’s historical recollection was selective. In point of fact, The Episcopal Church, it can be said, never really recognized the formation of the Confederate Church. When the roll was called at the General Convention of 1862, and the Southern dioceses did not respond, they were simply marked absent. When the Convention convened three years later, following the end of the Civil War, the dioceses representing the defeated Southern states had returned, contrite. Their attendance was duly noted, and the Church saw no need to be punitive. (This issue is discussed in some detail in my book, Yet With a Steady Beat: The African American Struggle for Recognition in the Episcopal Church.)
As I reflected on the bishop’s comments, I realized that from his theological point of view, the Confederacy may well be an apt analogy for the so-called orthodox movement in the Episcopal Church. Like the Confederacy, it stands for a different set of values than those of TEC. Progressives, like the Northerners, are considered traitors —- in this case to the cause of the Gospel. Moreover, we have been accused of doing to the church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality what the Northerners did to slavery, that is, annul a sacred relationship created by God. But the similarity is most evident in the fact that just as the Confederate Church maintained that they could no longer exist under the same roof as TEC, so has the conservative element in the Diocese declared that the Episcopal Church is an unfit cohabitant for them in the house of God. Separation from us, and realignment with another province of Anglicanism deemed to be, in the words of the Epistle to the Ephesians, “without spot, or wrinkle or any such thing,” is, for the “conserving church,” the only recourse.
Perhaps the most painful experience at Convention was listening to the laundry list of the theological deficiencies purportedly in evidence throughout the liberal wing of the church. They were summarized at a pre-Convention hearing led by Jonathan Millard, the rector of Ascension, Oakland. According to Fr. Millard, there is, in TEC, in addition to erroneous teaching and practice regarding human sexuality, confusion about who God is, a failure of bishops to defend the faith, and a lack of clear teaching about Christ’s divinity and about salvation and sin. A drift towards universalism; a loss of confidence in the Gospel as Good News for all; a preoccupation with social justice (as if justice were not a Biblical concept); contempt for the Bible’s authority, and a lack of respect for truth or unity are other shortcomings. While “evidence” for the existence of such opinions can be culled from various isolated sources, it is as preposterous as it is presumptuous to suggest that the entire church can be tarred by that brush. But tarred it has —- and our alleged failures are held up as the reasons for our being unfit to share Word and Sacrament with those who believe that they and they alone possess and practice the faith once delivered to the saints.
In his Convention address, Bishop Duncan observed that since the vote on Resolution One was but the first of the two votes required to effect a constitutional change, nothing has changed. I beg to differ. For the foreseeable future, the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh are living in a situation not unlike that of a couple who have decided to divorce, but who for whatever set of reasons, still share a residence. But it is actually worse than that. For whereas some couples may actually recognize that their marriage has failed but have no animosity toward each other, the conservative party sees itself as the wronged party in the marriage who has informed the progressive party in this Diocese that they have sullied the marriage because we follow a different Gospel and a different Lord.
If indeed the Episcopalians seeking realignment can be seen as the new Confederacy, we can take some comfort in the knowledge that the old Confederacy and the church that it spawned were short-lived. Already there is dissension in the ranks. In this diocese, although we could not tell by their behavior at Convention, there are several clergy and lay leaders from conserving” parishes who have indicated to the bishop that when push comes to shove, they will not join ranks with the Realigners, and will instead remain in the Episcopal Church. Beyond the bounds of the Diocese, other Realigners are seeking different paths. The bishop of Fort Worth, for example, whose diocese is a member of the Network, has indicated that his diocese will only realign with a province which does not recognize the ordination of women. One religious body which is a member of the newly formed group called Common Cause is reportedly considering a petition to the Holy See. Such, historically, has been the fate of religious organizations formed in protest against other religious organizations.
The memory of the words and the presence of Archbishop Tutu buoyed me during the cheerless hours spent at diocesan convention. His embracing message of inclusivity, based on his interpretation of John 12:32, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself,” rang in my ears. Despite a Biblical theology which trumpets a penchant for believing in “the plain meaning of Scripture,” this passage seems to elude our conservative brethren, who by their actions continually suggest that the Lord’s intention was to bring only some to himself. Here at Shady and Walnut, in an effort to be faithful to our Lord, will continue to endeavor to welcome all in the Name of Christ.
49 CommentsThe ENS report by Jan Nunley is headed: Fort Worth bishop receives notice of possible consequences if withdrawal effort continues.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has made public another letter of warning sent to a bishop actively seeking to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church.
The letter to Bishop Jack Leo Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth notifies him that such a step would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.The first of the letters was sent to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh on October 31. Letters to other bishops will follow.
Fort Worth’s diocesan convention, meeting November 16-17, is set to consider the first reading of a constitutional amendment that would remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention, as well as several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the Episcopal Church. Iker has indicated his support and approval of the amendments…
The full text of the letter is below the fold.
The Living Church also has a report: P.B. Issues Warning to Fort Worth.
32 CommentsThe Diocese of Virginia has published details of the various legal actions taken in the current disputes there over the ownership of parish property.
See Property Dispute:
The dispute over property in the Diocese of Virginia entered the civil courts when the separated CANA congregations filed petitions with the courts in their jurisdictions reporting the results of their congregational votes and seeking the court’s declaration that the property belonged to the congregations. The Diocese and the Episcopal Church responded to those filings and are defendants in those cases.
Subsequently, the Diocese and the Episcopal Church filed complaints seeking a declaration that Episcopal Church property, while held by local trustees, is held in trust for the benefit of the Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Virginia and Episcopalians throughout the generations. Those cases have yet to be scheduled for trial. At issue is the real and personal property of 11 Episcopal churches. In each case, that property currently is occupied and used by non-Episcopal congregations. Four continuing Episcopal congregations have been denied use of their property, locked out of their buildings, deprived of their rights to that property and forced into exile.
By agreement of the parties, all cases were consolidated in Fairfax Circuit Court, and they have been assigned to Judge Randy I. Bellows. On this site, you will find various court filings related to the litigation.
Truro Church has published this page: Property Defense.
And the Anglican District of Virginia has published this page: Legal Resources.
23 CommentsEpiscopal Café has drawn attention to a dissertation on this topic:
Episcopal Church is not divisible
Bishops thinking of leading their dioceses out of The Episcopal Church seem to have missed lessons on church history somewhere along the line. The Diocese of Pittsburgh’s vote on Resolution 1, as reported in A House Dividing yesterday is based on the idea that Dioceses are free standing entities. This reading of history has no basis in fact according to scholars of American history.
In 1959, James Allen (Jim) Dator, Professor, and Director of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa, wrote a dissertation on The Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America: Confederal, Federal, or Unitary? It was accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate School (School of Government) of The American University, Washington, DC, in 1959 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The complete dissertation is here.
The whole Episcopal Café article is here. It summarises some key conclusions of the dissertation. In particular:
…after carefully reviewing the various drafts of a constitution for PECUSA, and the Church’s Constitution as adopted on October 2, 1789, I conclude two things:
(1) The Church’s constitution was NOT made in imitation of the US Constitution. Thus, while the US Constitution is a federal system, giving the states certain rights and the central government other rights, “there is not explicit in the Church’s Constitution of 1789 any definition of a division of powers [between the dioceses and the General Convention], even though the framers of that Constitution had models of both the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution before them” (p. 53).
(2) PECUSA was created as a unitary and not a federal government: “In summary, neither Bishop White’s “Case”, nor the “Fundamental Principles” of 1784, nor the “General Ecclesiastical Constitution” of 1785, nor the “General Constitution of 1786,” nor the Constitution of 1789 provided explicitly for a constitutional division of powers. Such a division of powers is an essential manifestation of both federal and confederal governments. Neither is there any other evidence to indicate that the Constitution is one of a confederation. Indeed, as far as the written Constitution is explicitly concerned, the Church’s government is unitary” (p. 54).
There is a lot more. Do read at least the whole of the Cafe article.
40 CommentsUpdated again Sunday morning
Episcopal News Service has a further detailed report, Pittsburgh convention approves first reading of constitutional changes.
The Living Church has an extremely short report.
Newspapers:
New York Times Pittsburgh Episcopal Diocese Votes to Leave the Church
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Episcopal Diocese votes to leave
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Episcopal bishop won’t ‘abandon’ his local sheep
Associated Press Pittsburgh Diocese backs a split
Press Releases:
Progresssive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Chooses Path to Separation
Update
Apologies for the earlier erroneous information. I wrote earlier:
How close was this vote? Read this.
We have opened the way to seeking membership in another province of the Anglican Communion, should delegates so decide a year from now. But how significant a single vote can can be. We passed it 109-24 in the clerical order (the usual supermajority), but by 118 to 58 in the lay order (with one abstention). One switch from “aye” to “nay” and we would have lacked the requisite two-thirds majority…
This turns out to be incorrect. Only simple majorities are required. The Pittsburgh constitution reads:
7 CommentsArticle XV
Alteration of the Constitution
This Constitution, or any part thereof, may be altered in the following manner only: The proposed alteration or amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Annual Convention, and if approved by a majority of each Order, shall lie over to the next Annual Convention, and if again approved, by a majority of each Order, the Constitution shall then stand altered or amended as proposed.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh has voted in favour of Resolution One, which starts out this way:
RESOLVED, that Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Diocese of
Pittsburgh be, and it hereby is, amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:The Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh is a constituent member of the Anglican
Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.RESOLVED FURTHER, that a new Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh be, and it hereby is, adopted to read as follows:
The Diocese of Pittsburgh shall have membership in such Province of the Anglican
Communion as is by diocesan Canon specified.
Read the rest of it in a PDF file here.
The diocesan press release about this says:
Clergy and deputies to the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh’s 142nd Annual Convention strongly approved a resolution that begins the process of amending the diocesan constitution. If the amendment passes a second reading, slated for November of 2008, a future diocesan convention would be able to realign the diocese to another province of The Anglican Communion if it so chose.
Deputies voted 118 to 58 with one abstention to approve the change. Clergy voted 109 to 24 in favor. An effort to instead return the diocese to full “accession” to The Episcopal Church was defeated by voice vote.
“This vote does not change the diocese’s current affiliation with The Episcopal Church. In fact, nothing at all changes until such a time as the next annual convention approves a second reading of the proposed amendment,” said Bishop Robert Duncan…
Bishop Duncan’s address to the convention can be found in full here.
His letter in reply to the one from the Presiding Bishop is as follows:
1st November, A.D. 2007
The Feast of All SaintsThe Most Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori
Episcopal Church Center
New York, New YorkDear Katharine,
Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them.
Pax et bonum in Christ Jesus our Lord,
+Bob Pittsburgh
Episcopal News Service has this report by Mary Frances Schjonberg: Pittsburgh bishop declines Presiding Bishop’s offer of reconciliation.
78 CommentsThere is a very detailed article by Auburn Faber Traycik in the Christian Challenge which is titled TEC: “Clarified All…Questions”?
Also, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church passed a resolution at its recent meeting, which ENS reports on as follows:
10 CommentsAs it concluded its three-day fall meeting at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Dearborn, Michigan, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church thanked the House of Bishops for its efforts that resulted in a statement to the Anglican Communion issued in September.
However, Council Resolution NAC026 said that where the bishops’ statement called “particular attention to the application of [General Convention] Resolution B033 to lesbian and gay persons, it may inappropriately suggest that an additional qualification for the episcopacy has been imposed beyond those contained in the constitution and canons of the church.”
Two new articles arising from the recent Williams/Howe correspondence:
PARISH IS THE BASIC UNIT OF THE CHURCH IN AMERICAN ANGLICANISM by Rev. Dr. Tim Smith and Rev. George Conger.
The Parish is the basic unit of the church in American Anglicanism. Local property rights prevailed throughout early American Anglicanism. Centralization of control using the corporate model which began to be used in the early 1900s – has failed the purposes of the Church. Any new order should return to the foundational roots of American Anglicanism…
The Archbishop’s Letter to Central Florida: Scarcely Innocuous by T.W. Bartel
26 CommentsOn 14 October 2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida full text here… The Archbishop appeared to remove the national church and province from any significant role in his understanding of Anglican polity. He also seemed to suggest that a ‘Windsor-compliant’ diocese would be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, separate from the relationship of the diocese to its province.
In a letter to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, by contrast, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori makes very clear that the national church and its constitutional structures are a very sharp reality.
Timothy Bartel takes issue with the Archbishop:
What are we to think of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to the Bishop of Central Florida, which asserts that ‘any diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the [Anglican] Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church’? According to Lambeth Palace, that letter was ‘neither a new policy statement nor a roadmap for the future’ of the Communion. It was written simply to discourage conservative clergy and parishes in Central Florida and elsewhere from forsaking a ‘Windsor-compliant’ diocesan bishop and seeking refuge in foreign jurisdictions—and it simply repeats ‘a basic presupposition of what the archbishop believes to be the theology of the Church’, namely, that ‘theologically and sacramentally speaking, a priest is related in the first place to his or her bishop directly, not through the structure of the national church’…
Updated again Friday evening
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on October 31 inhibited Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania Bishop Charles Bennison from all ordained ministry pending a judgment of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop. The Title IV Review Committee issued a presentment for conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy against Bennison on October 28.
Read the full ENS report: Pennsylvania bishop inhibited from ordained ministry.
The two counts of the presentment center on accusations that Bennison, when he was rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Upland, California, did not respond properly after learning sometime in 1973 that his brother, John, who worked as a lay youth minister in the parish, was having an affair with a 14-year-old member of the youth group. John Bennison was also married at the time, according to the presentment.
The bishop is accused of not taking any steps to end the affair, not providing proper pastoral care to the girl, not investigating whether she needed medical care, taking three years to notify the girl’s parents, not reporting his brother to anyone, not investigating whether his brother was sexually involved with any other parishioners or other children, and seeking no advice on how to proceed. The presentment says Charles Bennison reacted “passively and self-protectively.”
The second count of the presentment accuses Bennison of continuing to fail in his duties until the fall of 2006. John Bennison became ordained during this time and the bishop is accused of not preventing his brother’s ordination, or his ultimately successful application to be reinstated as a priest after having renounced his orders in 1977, or his desire to transfer from the Diocese of Los Angeles to the Diocese of California. John Bennison was forced in 2006 to renounce his orders again when news of his abuse became public.
Updates
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania has issued a statement. TitusOneNine has a copy of it here.
Episcopal News Service has a detailed report: PENNSYLVANIA: Standing Committee upholds Presiding Bishop’s decision to inhibit bishop.
The Standing Committee website has more links.
55 CommentsKatharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA has written to Robert Duncan Bishop of Pittsburgh. The full text of this letter has been published by ENS and also appears here, below the fold.
According to Episcopal News Service similar letters will follow to other bishops who are actively seeking to withdraw their dioceses from the Episcopal Church.
Read the full report by Jan Nunley Presiding Bishop reaches out to bishops attempting to withdraw dioceses.
…Of those dioceses considering “realignment,” Springfield appears not to have yet acted, and Quincy declined in its recent diocesan convention to pass a proposed canonical revision.
Fort Worth’s convention, meeting November 14-15,is set to consider the first reading of a constitutional amendment that would remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of the church, as well several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the name of the Episcopal Church. Jefferts Schori intends to send a letter to Bishop Jack Iker, who advocates these changes, before the convention notifying him that such a step would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.
A similar canonical change is set to come before the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s convention November 2-3, and Jefferts Schori has written to Pittsburgh’s bishop in this regard (see link to letter cited above).
In December the Diocese of San Joaquin is scheduled to hear the second and final reading of its constitutional accession amendment, a proposed act that may prompt “more dramatic action” beforehand…
A year ago, the Presiding Bishop also wrote to Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.
66 CommentsThe Diocese of South Carolina announces that it has been notified that a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and a majority of Standing Committees have consented to the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as the 14th bishop of South Carolina.
The consecration will be held January 26, 2008 at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul in Charleston, South Carolina. There is no indication in the official announcements of who will preside at this service.
More details of this in the Episcopal News Service report here.
The Diocese has also announced that:
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori has accepted our invitation to meet with the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina February 25-26, 2008. This will give us an opportunity to state with clarity and charity the theological position of this Diocese in a manner similar to when we met with Most. Rev. Frank T. Griswold shortly after his Installation as Presiding Bishop.
An appropriate agenda will be developed after the Consecration.
Press reports:
Associated Press New Episcopal Bishop for S.C.
The State Diocese names new bishop
Bakersfield Californian Pastor named bishop after long struggle
14 CommentsAccording to the November issue of the diocesan newspaper, one of the seven parishes that was departing has changed its mind:
*LATE BREAKING NEWS: Fr. Holsapple, St. Anne’s, Crystal River, e-mailed Bishop Howe at press time, saying he had reconsidered and would not leave, nor would his parish.
Meanwhile, the Central Florida Episcopalian published full details of the proposed protocol by which any disaffiliations will be handled: see here.
Note that this has not yet been agreed to, as the bishop explains:
5 CommentsHow we move forward will necessarily differ from one case to another. If an overwhelming majority of the members of a given congregation were to decide to leave, we might face a situation in which disposal of the property would eventually have to be considered.
I have shared the following proposed protocol with the clergy at our annual Clergy Conference at Canterbury, and it will be presented to the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee later this month. It has not yet been adopted, but I believe that it – or something very like it – must ensure that the spiritual needs of all the members of the Diocese will be protected. (This is more detail than most of you will want, but for everyone concerned we need to be as clear as possible.)
Andrew Goddard has made a very detailed analysis of the Joint Standing Committee Report which you can read at Fulcrum: The Anglican Communion after New Orleans and the Joint Standing Committee Report.
It includes an interesting description of how the report was compiled.
Kendall Harmon had A Conversation with Elizabeth Paver, member of the ACC Standing Committee.
Peter Jensen spoke to the Australian General Synod: Responding to the American House of Bishops – Archbishop Peter Jensen.
George Conger wrote in the Church of England Newspaper US House of Bishops Letter sparks debates on both sides.
49 CommentsThe Bishop of Fort Worth and the President of the Standing Committee of that diocese welcomed the letter.
The Living Church reported that the Letter Doesn’t Sway Central Florida Parishes who were presumably the primary target.
One blogger I omitted previously was Tobias Haller who wrote Strange Advice and then followed up with States of Things.
George Conger reported on it for the Church of England Newspaper this way: Archbishop’s Letter Angers Liberals.
Andrew Carey wrote about it in his CEN column: New direction?
Cary McMullen asked in the Lakeland Ledger Has Bishop John Howe averted Schism?
2 CommentsUpdated
The following comment from Lambeth Palace has been issued:
“It should be understood that the Archbishop’s response to Bishop Howe was neither a new policy statement nor a roadmap for the future but a plain response to a very urgent and particular question about clergy in traditionalist dioceses in TEC who want to leave TEC for other jurisdictions, a response reiterating a basic presupposition of what the Archbishop believes to be the theology of the Church.
The primary point was that – theologically and sacramentally speaking – a priest is related in the first place to his/her bishop directly, not through the structure of the national church; that structure serves the dioceses. The diocese is more than a ‘local branch’ of a national organisation. Dr Williams is clear that, whatever the frustration with the national church, priests should think very carefully about leaving the fellowship of a diocese. The provincial structure is significant, not least for the administration of a uniform canon law and a range of practical functions; Dr Williams is not encouraging anyone to ignore this, simply to understand the theological priorities which have been articulated in a number of ecumenical agreements, and in the light of this not to increase the level of confusion and fragmentation in the church.”
Update
The Living Church has a report by George Conger that elaborates a little on this: Archbishop Williams’ Letter ‘Not a Roadmap for the Future’
Second Update
Episcopal News Service has issued a report on the whole episode: CENTRAL FLORIDA: Howe letter quotes Canterbury; Lambeth issues clarification.
Updated Monday evening
The letter from Rowan Williams to John Howe of Central Florida (full text here) has already caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Here are some of the early reactions:
Covenant Ephraim Radner with Chris Seitz and Philip Turner: A Statement Regarding Upholding the Ministry of Faithful Bishops (also on the ACI site)
The Anglican Scotist A Glimpse into Williams’ Ecclesiology
Fr Jake More Confusion From Canterbury
Episcopal Café Think before you leap
Ruth Gledhill Rowan tells Orthodox: ‘Stay loyal to sacramental communion’
Dan Martins A Sudden Burst of Fresh Air
Adrian Worsfold National Anglican Churches Demolished…
Nigel Taber-Hamilton The Great Betrayal – Rowan Williams and the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it
Living Church Archbishop of Canterbury Discourages Separatist Solution
Updates
Covenant Doug LeBlanc Interpreting the First Epistle to Central Floridians
The Anglican Centrist The Letter from Canterbury to Orlando
89 CommentsAmended
The Diocese of Central Florida has reported that a number of its parishes are discussing leaving the Episcopal Church.
See the Living Church report, Central Florida Parishes, Church Plants Plan to Disaffiliate.
Or this from the Lakeland Ledger Episcopal Leaders in Separation Talks
Bishop John Howe has issued a pastoral letter to be read today in churches. You can read the full text of it here on No Claim to Sainthood: The Bishop speaks.
The following paragraph (emphasis added) is of particular interest beyond Florida:
I have said repeatedly that it is my desire to remain both an Episcopalian and an Anglican. In that regard, let me share something with you that the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to me just this past week: “Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such…. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the “National Church.”
Addendum On some other blogs, the direct quote from the archbishop has been extended to the end of the paragraph, but this is clearly not so in the source from which I have quoted.
Amendment Bishop Howe has now released the full text of his letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury and it can be read in full here. This text shows that the quotation should indeed go to the end of the paragraph, and not as previously indicated above stop at the word “such”. However, there was a very substantial section between the two sentences which was omitted, as indicated in the correct version by an ellipsis. The source from which I originally quoted has now also been corrected (and the error there explained).
I do strongly recommend reading the full text of the archbishop’s letter, which I have reproduced below the fold.
73 Comments