It’s all a bit confusing, but here are several further articles relating to this story.
Colorado Gazette Paul Asay Anglican group cuts ties with Armstrong which reports on the meeting yesterday at which Fr Armstrong spoke.
Denver Post Virginia Culver Episcopal priest denies funds misused
Sarah Dylan Breuer the “Communion” afterthought which examines the history of the ACI website in great detail.
A letter to the editor of the Gazette (apparently as yet unpublished) from Fr Armstrong’s senior warden (scroll down)
Diocese of Colorado letter from the bishop, and press release dated 14 April: full text below the fold.
60 CommentsEpiscopal News Service has published Charges dropped against Connecticut bishop.
See also, the Connecticut diocesan statement Ecclesiastical charges against the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith dropped by Episcopal Church review committee.
The full report of the Title IV Review Committee can be downloaded here (PDF, 4.5 Mbytes).
There is another report by the Living Church: Investigation Clears Bishop of Connecticut. It includes this:
At several points in the decision the review committee made comparisons of the actions of the six clergy to recommendations made in the so-called “Chapman Memo,” an unofficial strategy report leaked to the press that called for widespread canonical disobedience with the objective being the replacement of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion.
“The AAC [American Anglican Council] had advised dissenting priests and congregations to plan and prepare to separate themselves from their dioceses but not to say that they were ‘out of communion’ with the dioceses, precisely in order to avoid proceedings under Canon IV.10,” the decision stated. “While it may seem surprising and even ironic that priests could be found to have abandoned the communion of the Church while protesting that they were not leaving the Church and are in fact trying to preserve the Church’s communion with Anglicans worldwide, the canons do not preclude addressing the acts of the six priests described above through Title IV, Canon 10.”
Fr. Hansen was removed from priestly ministry within The Episcopal Church, but the other five continue to serve as rectors of their respective parishes. Based on the review committee decision it would appear there is no impediment to prevent Bishop Smith from immediately removing the other five, but Karin Hamilton, the director of communication for the diocese, said she is unaware of any such plans by Bishop Smith.
Hartford Courant Review Panel Clears Episcopal Leader and this earlier report from Associated Press Church Dismisses Religious Charges Against Episcopal Bishop.
New Haven Register Charges against Episcopal bishop dropped
Over in Pueblo, Colorado, Dr Ephraim Radner Rector of Church of the Ascension has written another article, titled The March Statement by the House of Bishops: Confusing the Flock which criticises the statement issued by the meeting of the House of Bishops which he himself had earlier addressed.
Many, including those opposing its content, have praised the recent House of Bishops Statement for its “clarity”. In what follows, I want to dispute that evaluation. The Statement is unclear in numerous important respects, except one, viz. its animus against the Anglican Communion’s Primates’ Meeting. The reasons for that animus, however, are hardly spelled out, are often contradictory, and are lodged within a tissue of assertions that are without stated rationale. This is not clarity at all. And in the context of the current agonized and conflicted debate within TEC and the Communion, the Statement amounts to an act of pastoral and theological irresponsibility of the highest order….
Warning: there are over 8000 words in the article.
13 CommentsThe Colorado Springs Gazette on Friday published this letter from nineteen former vestry members from Grace and St. Stephens Episcopal Church, under the headline Pastor must answer important questions. It begins:
We are 19 former vestry members from Grace and St. Stephens Episcopal Church. Between us, we served almost every year when Father Don Armstrong was rector. Though we represent a variety of views on the moral issues facing our church, those issues are not in question here.
At issue is the commandment: Thou shalt not steal. Armstrong is exploiting theological divisions within the Episcopal Church to avoid a canonical investigation about his alleged financial wrongdoing. He has defied church and civil law by occupying and taking property from the church he and his allies left. We cannot keep silent.
Armstrong dismisses inquiries into his financial activities. He cries “religious persecution.” Consider the facts and ask: Is Armstrong trustworthy? Is he guilty of financial wrongdoing? Do he and his followers have a lawful basis for taking church property?
The background to this was explained Thursday by Paul Asay on his blog in Breaking Ranks:
Tomorrow’s edition of The Gazette will contain a letter from 19 ex-vestry members of Grace who, in essence, are publicly questioning their former rector’s honesty.
“(The Rev. Donald) Armstrong is exploiting theological divisions within the Episcopal Church to avoid a canonical investigation about his alleged financial wrongdoing,” the letter says. “He has defied church and civil law by occupying and taking property from the church he and his allies left. We cannot keep silent.”
I talked with one of these former vestry members a few days ago. Timothy Fuller served on the vestry only a year, and resigned in January after learning, he says, that the vestry was secretly talking with Armstrong (which violated Armstrong’s suspension) and was plotting to break away from The Episcopal Church…
In another Thursday blog entry More Grace Info … Paul Asay writes:
14 CommentsThis Saturday, the Rev. Donald Armstrong, longtime rector of Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish, will try to explain away allegations that he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from his church.
One of the main issues he’ll likely address is how he allegedly used the Anglican Communion Institute, a conservative theological think-tank operated as a ministry of Grace. Armstrong is still listed on its Web site as its executive director.
Timothy Fuller, a former vestry member of Grace, said he served on the ACI’s board for three years. Not once in those three years, Fuller said, did the board formally meet.
In October 2006, according to Fuller, Armstrong told the vestry that the ACI had borrowed about $170,000 from Grace over several years, and the vestry resolved the Institute would pay it back in $10,000 yearly installments, beginning this year.The vestry meeting was the first time Fuller had heard of the $170,000 the ACI allegedly borrowed. He resigned from the Institute’s board two months later.
According to the Rev. Christopher Seitz, president of the ACI and a professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, the ACI shouldn’t have been very expensive.
“The only cost of running the Institute is our time, which we give away, and a Web site, which involves nominal costs,” Seitz said in an e-mail. “Travel reimbursements were handled by the executive director, or we paid for these costs ourselves. There are no employees, no overhead in a formal sense, no hard-copy publications and no programs to fund.”
The presentment alleges that Armstrong caused the church to pay $146,316 beginning in March 2003 as “outreach expenses” to the Institute — money it never received. According to the presentment, the checks in question were made payable to “Donald Armstrong College Fund” or “College Fund.”
Armstrong says the ACI actually funded several projects, and acknowledged his children’s education was one of them…
Since the previous report here on CANA in Colorado there has been extensive local newspaper coverage of developments at Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish. You can find links to most of those stories via epiScope.
One recent story is Grace asks court to protect property from state diocese by Paul Assay in the Colorado Springs Gazette. This links to a PDF file (650K) of the presentment issued against The Reverend Donald Armstrong by the Diocese of Colorado.
Yesterday, the same reporter wrote Date set for Grace parishioners to vote on vestry’s severed ties. This includes:
MORE DETAILS ABOUT ARMSTRONG’S CHARGES PRESENTED BY DIOCESE
The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado released a copy of its charges against the Rev. Donald Armstrong on Friday, providing far greater detail of the Colorado Springs priest’s alleged misuse of funds.
Armstrong, longtime rector for Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish, was suspended in December while the diocese investigated whether he misapplied church money. The document released Friday — a presentment to the diocese’s ecclesiastical court — is a summary of what the investigation found. The presentment alleges:
– Armstrong used a scholarship fund, whose committee hasn’t met since 1992, to fund his own children’s education, provide an $8,800 grant for a former associate and for other unknown uses. Alleged theft: $115,387.
– The “outreach expenses” on the books that Grace Church made to the Anglican Communion Institute, Grace’s conservative think tank, never reached the institute. Instead, those payments were made to accounts called “Donald Armstrong — College Fund” or “College Fund.” Alleged theft: $146,316.
– The church paid for cell phones, personal computers and car expenses for his wife and children. Alleged theft: $130,707.
– Armstrong caused the church to underreport hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and benefits, including $261,703 for his children’s college-related expenses, $110,920 in personal expenses and $81,589 in unpaid, no-interest “loans” the church gave Armstrong. Alleged unreported income: $548,097.
– Armstrong received 14 loans from the church over 10 to 12 years, even though state law says corporations (Grace Church) can’t loan money to directors or officers. Total value of the alleged loans: $122,479.
The presentment, issued by the Diocesan Review Committee, also alleges that Armstrong misused the church’s discretionary fund account, broke the terms of his suspension, and encumbered the church with $4.5 million in debt without diocesan permission.
Jim Naughton has drawn attention to the part of the presentment (page 5) which says:
…the Anglican Communion Institute (“ACI”) is a ministry of Grace Church. While ACI is not a legal entity, it has its own checking account. The operating accounts of Grace Church and ACI were used interchangeably to pay for the operating expenses of the other….
Christopher Seitz has made this comment about the above:
64 CommentsThis is confusing to us at ACI. ACI was formed at the January 2004 conference in Charleston, with the dissolving of SEAD, so as to assist several Primates and the work of the AC. Prior to this, there was an ‘Anglican Institute’ at Grace Church. Many of the dates in the Presentment pre-date ACI but could pertain to AI. It is unclear where the confusion is being introduced. Then again, in one newspaper account, it is made to appear that ACI was a victim of this ‘bad book-keeping.’ So until there is more public airing, things remain unclear. The way this has unfolded, the potential for confusion and hurt is maximised in a way that is tragic. C Seitz, President, ACI
The BBC radio programme Sunday carried an item concerning the Anglican Communion and the American church.
Better link now available:
35 CommentsHolding the Anglican Communion together
Ever since the gay Bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in America, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has being trying to find a formula to keep the Anglican Communion together.At a meeting of the Primates in Tanzania, the Americans were asked to accept and implement the Lambeth resolutions (the traditional teachings on sexuality) and to agree a new system of pastoral oversight for some conservatives in the American church who won’t accept the authority of Bishops with a more liberal line on sexuality. The Bishops of the Episcopal Church have refused these two recommendations.
One of those Bishops, John Chane of Washington, explained why he found the recommendations offensive and disrespectful. Damian Thompson, leader writer for the Daily Telegraph who thinks “it’s all over for the Archbishop”, and Martyn Percy, Principal of Ripon Theological College, also joined Sunday.
Listen (10m 29s)
Members of the Anglican Communion Institute have published several essays recently.
Ephraim Radner, who also made a presentation to the House of Bishops on the Proposed Anglican Covenant published
What Way Ahead? and
What Way Ahead – Part Two.
Christopher Seitz has written
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion and also
The Pastoral Council and the Primatial Vicar.
Comments on the above:
Jim Naughton The latest from Ephraim Radner and ACI leader’s parish joins Church of Nigeria
John Chilton Quote of the day :: Ephraim Radner and Quote of the day :: Christopher Seitz
Nick Knisely More on Seitz’s argument regarding historical precedence
Updated Monday
In addition to the report from Bishop Jim Kelsey, there is now a very long report indeed from Bishop Pierre Whalon, who is Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
That is available as a Word document at Long note on the Situation, March 2007.doc. Again it is strongly recommended reading.
Update Monday
Another version of the full article now appears on Anglicans Online at A Bishop’s Estimate of the Situation.
Much of that report is concerned with the Anglican historical background to current events, but his account of the recent American House of Bishops meeting is not too long to reproduce here:
Our House’s meeting
Finally we come to the present moment, from the “big picture” to the details. The February 2007 Primates’ Communiqué made several specific demands of The Episcopal Church’s bishops, to be met by September 30. The Communiqué asked for clarification of the bishops’ intentions to abide by the decisions of the 2006 and 2003 General Conventions not to accept the consecrations of other partnered gay bishops or create rites of same-sex blessings. Furthermore, it proposed appointing a pastoral council composed of two foreign bishops and two bishops appointed by the Presiding Bishop, chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would oversee the ministry of a “primatial vicar,” a bishop to represent the Presiding Bishop to seven of the church’s one hundred ten dioceses and parishes in other dioceses that do not accept her ministry.
Ephraim Radner, a conservative Episcopal theologian appointed to the newly-formed Covenant Design Group, told the Episcopal bishops that everything boils down to trust. He presented the Covenant process as a way to create trust again. He is of course quite right. However, there have been many developments, some even during the meeting, which contributed to eroding trust.
First, The Episcopal Church has been held to the standards of Lambeth I.10 and the Windsor Report, which some of those demanding a reckoning from us have themselves ignored:
- Some provinces have given full support and encouragement in their respective nations to draconian legislation criminalizing people for being gay which has been unanimously condemned by the world’s human-rights organizations, in blatant disregard of the Lambeth resolution we are accused of violating. Had the Primates’ Communiqué addressed this firmly, it would have had much greater credibility.
- Some primates and other foreign bishops since 2000 have been coming into our dioceses (and Italy as well) despite requests from the respective diocesans that they should not. They have wreaked havoc by setting up illicit non-geographical jurisdictions and making grandiose promises to clergy and people, thus violating not only the Windsor Report conditions (para. 155), but also the unanimous practice of Anglicans, and indeed the Church Catholic since the First Council of Nicea.
(We would all do well to remember the Lord’s instruction: before removing the speck of sawdust from your brother or sister’s eye, pay attention to the great wooden log in your own (Mt. 7:3-5; Lk 6: 41-42).)
The Communiqué seemed to “move the markers” again, by sweeping aside the scheme set up by the bishops for dissenting congregations (“delegated episcopal pastoral oversight,” which the Windsor Report had commended) in favor of this council. There was no appreciation that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church requires unconditionally that any clergy exercising within the church must swear to “conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship” of the Church (Article VIII). Can one reasonably demand something of a bishop which he or she has no power to grant, and then complain about the bishop’s unwillingness to work with them?
The first day the bishops convened to consider the Communiqué (March 16) was also announced as the last day for nominations to fill the pastoral council, as if the Episcopal bishops had already acquiesced to it. Perhaps it was thought that Bishop Katharine had agreed to the scheme, which in any event she has no authority to do. In fact, she reported (and others can confirm) that she only agreed to take it to her House of Bishops.
Furthermore, despite a report from their own Standing Committee that The Episcopal Church through its General Convention had accepted the restrictions on it required by the Windsor Report, the Primates seemed to demand more assurances. And the Communiqué threatened implicitly that if the bishops did not accede to all its demands, the setting up of alternative jurisdictions within the American province would continue unabated.
Further erosion of trust occurred when it was learned that the Archbishop of Uganda was in Los Angeles during our meeting to administer confirmation in three of the diocese’s congregations. The Bishop of Los Angeles asserted that he had written “twenty to thirty” letters to him, none of which had received the favor of a reply.
A report from bishops working on the matter of property disputes produced several documents from the Anglican Communion Network, an organization specifically set up to promote the replacement of The Episcopal Church, which works closely with those Primates who have taken it upon themselves to “fix” us. These outlined plans for the subversion of the Church from within. The last document reportedly had the phrase, “Wage guerilla warfare in The Episcopal Church,” allegedly in the hand of the Network’s Moderator, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh.
In light of these provocations, I think our Statement was quite moderate, though some of the language sounds a bit jingoist (“liberation from colonialism” is not how most Church of England colonists saw the American Revolution). In all our resolutions, we affirmed our deep desire to remain within the Anglican Communion, while declining to participate in a scheme we had no authority to accept, a plan which would have de facto grounded the schism some long to see.
Update Saturday
Fr Jake has an article The Subversion of the Church From Within which contains links to numerous documents which relate to some of the points made in the article above.
Earlier, I identified a list of possible “Windsor” bishops which numbered fourteen, in addition to the ten bishops of NACDAP dioceses.
Recently Stand Firm has been trying to find out how these bishops voted at the recent American HoB meeting, on the specific issue of the “mind of the house” resolution addressed to the Executive Council that urges it to “decline to participate in” the pastoral structures articulated by the Tanzania Communique. They took the view, which seems reasonable to me, that a true “Windsor” bishop could not have voted for this resolution.
They included one bishop that I omitted, namely Mark MacDonald of Alaska. I excluded him since he has recently accepted a bishopric in Canada; in the event he did not attend the meeting due to illness.
John Bauerschmidt of Tennessee has succeeded Bertram Herlong, retired. He appears to be a further potential for the “Windsor” list.
The results of their investigations to date:
But so far—barring the one that we have no knowledge of [Bishop Ohl]—of the 25 Windsor bishops, we know of:
— 2 that voted for the HOB resolution opposing the pastoral structures of the Tanzania Communique
— 6 who did not attend the meeting
— 3 who attended the meeting but were unable to vote
— 14 who voted AGAINST the HOB resolution that rejected the pastoral structures of the primates
Considering first the NACDAP bishops:
Turning to the fifteen other bishops(including both MacDonald and Bauerschmidt):
So the total number of non-network “Windsor” bishops may be no more than twelve.
16 CommentsThe Bishop of Northern Michigan, Jim Kelsey, has published a lengthy and detailed report of the recent American House of Bishops meeting. The whole document can be read at Jim Kelsey’s report on the Spring Bishops’ Meeting March, 2007 on Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan News. As several others have already said, it is a Must Read.
Some parts of the report deal with earlier meetings, and these may be of even wider interest:
…During the meetings of the Bishops Working for a Just Society, there was also discussion about a major world-wide gathering of Anglicans just completed in Boksburg, South Africa, convened to focus on the Millennium Development Goals, and especially the one dealing with the AIDS pandemic (MDG Goal #6). The gathering was called TEAM (Towards Effective Anglican Mission). It was moving to hear from those who were there, as they recounted the remarkable presentations by people from all over the world who told of the depth of human suffering and the response to which our Church is called. It was encouraging to hear about how these Anglicans from around the globe approached the US Episcopalians who were there, and made clear that despite the unpleasantness coming out of the Primates’ meeting, they were eager to continue our partnerships in mission of all sorts and configurations, and that they had no intention of withdrawing from communion with us, regardless of what official actions are being taken by the Primates.
But it was discouraging to hear about a meeting held between Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the US Episcopal bishops who were present. It was clear that at the meeting, Rowan Williams was uncomfortable and defensive, and that he has a distorted picture of The Episcopal Church (believing that the dissidents in our midst make up 40% of the Episcopal Church – – a bizarre and wildly inaccurate figure). When asked how the rest of the world perceives our efforts to promote and advance the Millennium Development Goals, Williams responded that he thought it was received as “papering over differences, and buying votes”. (Quite a different read from the face to face encounters our people experienced throughout the TEAM conference!). When asked what would happen after the September 30th deadline set by the Primates’ Communiqué, and who would decide about the adequacy of the response of the Episcopal Church to its demands, Rowan Williams responded that it would not be he who would decide since, as he said, “I’m not a Pope; that’s not how our system works… I’ll take it to the Primates, and they will decide”. (As if that’s how our system works!!!) This was sobering to hear, to say the least! At least we know where we stand, and what lies ahead…
And another section:
59 CommentsBy the way, those who had been at the Primates’ meeting in Tanzania reported some very disturbing dynamics. The Primate of Mexico, Carlos Touche Porter, said that every time there was a break, new amendments were proposed for the Communiqué, always more critical of The Episcopal Church. His comment was, “as the meeting went on, I began to feel less like a Primate and more like a Cardinal”. Between his observations and those of our press corps, it was clear, in fact, that every time there was a break, Peter Akinola disappeared into a room where Martin Minns and other conservative US folks were holed up, and when he emerged, he had the next revisions for the Communiqué – which in fact were adopted. In the earlier drafts, there was a phrase “We respect The Episcopal Church”, and on the strength alone of Peter Akinola’s objection, that phrase was removed. All of this provides important information: that it is clear who is in control of the Primates’ Meeting, and this reinforces why it is so important that the Primates not be given increased power as a centralized authority in the Anglican Communion.
…The vestry of Grace and St. Stephen’s, Colorado Springs, announced March 26 its intention for the parish to leave the Diocese of Colorado and affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). The parish’s rector, the Rev. Don Armstrong, has also transferred to CANA.
See the Living Church report titled Colorado Springs Parish Plans to Join CANA.
The parish’s own news page is here.
Today, the Rocky Mountain Gazette has published UPDATE Diocese accuses Grace’s Armstrong of theft, fraud and the Letter from Bishop O’Neill can be read as a PDF here. An earlier Gazette article is Question of authority.
Rocky Mountain News said Episcopal diocese threatens to sue breakaway parish leaders.
The New York Times earlier had Episcopalians in Colorado Plan to Leave Denomination
Associated Press is now saying Colo. Parish Leader Facing Money Charges. Updated Thursday morning
The Reverend Donald Armstrong is also the Executive Director of the Anglican Communion Institute.
The ACI issued this comment earlier.
Episcopal News Service yesterday had COLORADO: Diocese moves to protect remaining Episcopalians, parish property.
34 CommentsEpiscopal News Service has a 15 minute video interview with the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Go here to watch it.
35 CommentsPress Release from InclusiveChurch
26th March 2007
We acknowledge the frustration which has led the Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) to reject the requests of the Dar Es Salaam Communique for the creation of a parallel church structure.
We welcome their strong affirmations of the equality before God and human rights of all people.
We wish members of TEC to know that we fully support them in their response to the Primates.
To lose the long-cherished principles of provincial autonomy, respect for diversity and active participation of laypeople and clergy would be to lose many of the defining principles of our Anglican inheritance. We have no tradition of centralising authority in the hands of a few senior bishops.
The majority of members of the Church of England find the continued failure of Anglicans to recognise the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people absolutely unacceptable.
It is increasingly clear to us that the process which the Communion has followed over lesbian and gay Christians has been very seriously flawed. Comparisons have been drawn with the ordination of women. In relation to that question a moratorium was imposed in 1948. But the next twenty years led to a conditional acceptance, following a great deal of work by the Communion and a serious and sustained engagement with the question.
But the initial Lambeth resolution in 1978 calling for sustained engagement over issues of human sexuality was honoured only in the breach. Twenty years later at Lambeth 98, the conclusions of the working party charged with coming up with a response to these questions were hijacked by a few conservative bishops with the active support of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. A resolution was produced which rowed back from the 1978 call. In other words, the “conservative” position became a “regressive” position.
In this context, the frustration felt by the Episcopal Church and expressed by its Bishops last week is entirely understandable. To add weight to that frustration, the “listening process” which was called for by Lambeth 98 and again in the Windsor Report has not been carried out with any degree of seriousness by those people who have most to lose by genuine engagement – that is, those parts of TEC loosely grouped under the American Anglican Council, the Province of Nigeria and conservative groups in England. And the cross-border incursions condemned by the Windsor process have, far from coming to a halt, merely increased.
In the meantime, the Church of England has moved on. The debates at General Synod on Wednesday 28th February showed that there is a desire by Synod to take a more mature and supportive approach to Christians who genuinely see the inclusion of lesbian and gay people as a Gospel imperative.
We are now in the ridiculous position where we have gay clergy living in relationship at all levels of the hierarchy – and where the blessing of same-sex relationships is taking place in a significant number of parishes. Parishes trying to live out the radical and inclusive welcome of Jesus Christ are thriving. But because of the untenable policy of the House of Bishops none of this can be acknowledged.
In the meantime, the Archbishop of Nigeria is proceeding at full speed with his support for the homophobic legislation proposed in that country which breaches the UN Declaration on Human Rights, unchecked by his brother Primates.
In this context, we do not see that Lambeth 1.10 can be considered any longer to hold legitimacy or credence. Nor do we see that the Windsor process (which was planned as a process of reconciliation but has been used as a process of exclusion) can continue any further. The road map, effectively, was torn up at Dar Es Salaam. We are now in a new world, in which it is hard to see how a meaningful Covenant can be agreed.
This week it is worth remembering that the entire House of Bishops was originally opposed to the abolition of the slave trade. It took William Wilberforce and his colleagues over twenty years to convince the Church of the rightness of their cause.
InclusiveChurch remains committed to its fundamental aim: to celebrate the diverse gifts of all members of the body of Christ; and in the ordering of our common life to open the ministries of deacon, priest and bishop to those so called to serve by God, regardless of their sex, race or sexual orientation. We will continue to work to fulfil that aim across the Anglican Communion. We look forward to ever increasing friendship with inclusive Christians around the world.
Giles Goddard, Chair, IC
51 CommentsTelling Beads is keeping track of statements made by individual bishops, commenting on their recent meeting in Navasota, Texas, at Bishops Speak About Their Meeting.
Episcopal Majority is also collecting them, but in multiple posts. Go here and scroll through the recent posts.
Changing Attitude has issued this press release: Changing Attitude England welcomes the response of the House of Bishops of the American Episcopal Church.
0 CommentsUpdated Friday evening
Today, the Daily Telegraph catches up with the news, as Jonathan Petre reports Liberal bishops reject parallel Church, but compensates for the delay by printing this leader column: Communion no more. Part of it reads:
…The text of the American bishops’ statement is damaging. This is a national Church speaking with an (almost) united voice. The casus belli has shifted from the ordination of Gene Robinson, a bishop who is in a relationship with another man, to allegations of bullying by a group of primates led by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr Williams now finds himself out of favour with liberals and moderate conservatives in his own Communion. And, harsh though it may sound, he has only himself to blame.
In the past couple of years, he has allowed conservative Anglicanism to be hijacked by extremists. Archbishop Peter Akinola, Anglican Primate of Nigeria, is the leader of the Global South provinces opposed to the ordination of actively homosexual clergy.
That is fair enough, but he has also defended new Nigerian legislation that makes “cancerous” (his word) same-sex activity punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. The deeply divisive figure of Archbishop Akinola was central to Dr Williams’s Tanzanian compromise; is it any wonder that it has been rejected?…
It takes a while for the RSS feed to arrive, but the Damian Thompson blog entry related to this is now on Holy Smoke: It’s all over for the Archbishop. He starts out this way:
35 CommentsRowan Williams is finished as Archbishop of Canterbury. His authority has been utterly destroyed by the decision of the American bishops to reject his scheme to hold together the Anglican Communion.
If there is a Lambeth Conference next year – and it is hard to see how there can be, if its American bankrollers are kicked out – then I shall be very surprised if he presides over it.
Any Archbishop of Canterbury would have faced almost insurmountable obstacles to preserving the unity of the Anglican Communion, many of whose members do not recognise each other as Christians, let alone as Anglicans. But Dr Williams has not come even close to surmounting them.
Just as John Major never recovered from Black Wednesday, Rowan Williams has never recovered from Black Sunday: 6 July, 2003, when he forced his friend Canon Jeffrey John to withdraw his acceptance of the post of Bishop of Reading…
Updated Monday morning
One of the things the American bishops did was to invite Rowan Williams and the Primates Standing Committee to come to the USA, and talk directly to them.
Somebody has decided to help this idea along: see on Ebay Travel for the Archbishop of Canterbury to the USA:
See American bishops in their native habitat!
The bishops of the American Episcopal Church have asked Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to make an unprecedented and long-delayed visit to them in North America to discuss the Current Unpleasantness pre-occupying the Anglican Communion. The Americans assure ++Cantuar that their Christian hospitality will match that of the various fissiparous bishops he has broken bread with on multiple continents. So that the plate and pledge of parishes is not unnecessarily depleted, elements within TEC inclined toward reconciliation or at least a good face-to-face row are offering a business class ticket to any USA destination of the archbishop’s choosing, along with lodging in a Courtyard by Marriott ™ or better accommodation within strolling distance of the agreed-upon meeting place. A team of Th.D translators will be on hand to couch ++Cantuar’s musings in terms accessible to the colonials. Tea and biscuits to be provided by the ECW.
All are invited to bid on this communion-saving encounter.
Update see eBay Shall Not Splinter the Communion!
2 CommentsEpiscopal News Service has a detailed report of the news conference held at the end of the American House of Bishops meeting: Bishops comment on invitation to Archbishop of Canterbury, other actions.
The Living Church has a report headed Resolutions Arose From Bishops’ Concern Over Pastoral Council Nominations.
18 CommentsThe Comment is free website is carrying an article by the Guardian’s Religious Affairs Correspondent, Stephen Bates. The title is Bishops to primate: drop dead.
The original on which this headline is based can be found here.
44 CommentsThe American Anglican Council has this AAC Statement on the Episcopal House of Bishops’ March 2007 Meeting.
Integrity has INTEGRITY APPLAUDS BISHOPS’ STRONG STAND AGAINST PRIMATES.
The Bishop of Central Florida has written a very surprising letter which can be found here.
The Bishop of Western Louisiana also wrote about it. See here.
The Bishop of New Hampshire wrote this Pastoral Letter.
Susan Russell had this Report on Post Camp Allen News Conference which includes some interesting tidbits.
Bishop Christopher Epting has written What The Bishops Didn’t Do.
6 CommentsFor earlier reports, including UK papers this morning go here.
BBC US bishops refuse Anglican demand
Reuters Global Anglican dispute remains after US meeting
Associated Press Episcopal bishops reject ultimatum from Anglican leaders, risking split from Anglican family
New York Times Episcopal Church Rejects Demand for a 2nd Leadership
Washington Post Episcopal Bishops in U.S. Defy Anglican Communion
Los Angeles Times Episcopal-Anglican rift deepens
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Episcopal bishops reject Anglican demands
Houston Chronicle Episcopal bishops spurn demands from Anglicans
USA Today Episcopal bishops reject Anglican ultimatum on gays
50 Comments