Monday, 14 August 2006

Dallas clergy dissent from diocesan action

Earlier, I reported that not all Episcopalians in the dioceses which had requested “alternative primatial oversight” or had otherwise sought to “disassociate” their diocese from the actions of the General Convention 206, were happy with all those actions.

The latest example comes from Dallas where fifteen clergy have signed a statement of their “intent to remain members of The Episcopal Church”.

Their statement can be found here.

The diocesan statements to which this is a reaction can be found here. This is the diocese which has asked for “direct” primatial oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

“To this end, we call upon the bishop to appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a direct primatial relationship with him for the purpose of mission, pastoral support, and accountability.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 10:12pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

This statement by clergy in the Diocese of Dallas has tremendous integrity, and shows real leadership. I'm sure Stanton and his Standing Committee won't back down; so, I hope this same group will be prepared to make presentments against Stanton and any other clergy in the Diocese of Dallas who are intent on hijacking the Episcopal Church and abandoning the communion of the church.

Also, I hope that if the ABC should be insane enough to grant Stanton's request, which would be illegal meddling in the affairs of an independent church in the Anglican Communion, that this group will appeal to the PB to declare Dallas a vacant diocese and send a missionary bishop to start over.

This should be a process used by other loyal Episcopalians in other dioceses where bishops have created havoc and atttempted to "steal" for Peter Akinola what isn't theirs, or his.

Posted by: Pete on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 11:26pm BST

I am so proud of these members of our clergy that I find it hard to put into words. Bucking the establishment around here is not something *anyone* does lightly, and it indeed shows tremendous integrity (and courage) on their part.

Please also note that the statement continues to circulate and we may see add'l signatures in the coming days.

Now, to work on a similar stmt for the laity to sign ;)

Posted by: David Huff on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 1:56am BST

This should be a process used by other loyal Episcopalians in other dioceses where bishops have created havoc and atttempted to "steal" for Peter Akinola what isn't theirs, or his. Pete

Exactly.

Let's have ANOTHER special "Meeting" at Camp Allen (or even Lambeth Palace) to discuss "Boundry/Diocese Crossing" Windsor VIOLATING self-seekers like Akinola and Orombi. Bishop Chane and Whimberly can lead it as co-chairs! Perhaps +Houston and +Dallas (hey, maybe Ft. Worth too) will add a few MORE real and honest topics to roundout their rather shameful and NARROWLY focused Windsor "abiding" agenda!

Shameful pretending, "sins of ommission" and denial!

Surely Archbishop Rowan is interested in EVERYONE discussing ALL of the Windsor "suggestions" and "violations" and not just "selectively" discriminating against LGBT Christians and OUR loving supporters in the Anglican Communion.

He *is* fair and honorable isn't he?

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 2:31pm BST

I hope this gets wide circulation, especially to the attention of the ABC. Each of the neocon dioceses has a healthy componant of people who may not agree about the actions of the last two general conventions but who have NO desire to leave TEC. It takes considerable courage to stand up to bullies in pointy hats, particularly for clergy.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 at 3:04pm BST

Amazing comments. So it is OK to stand up for a minority if it is following the ECUSA agenda but not OK if it follows the AC agenda!

Goose and gander rules need not apply.

Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 1:30pm BST

"AC agenda?" Do explain more. Would that by any chance include what the the primates said at Dromantine including both of these:

15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003. Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.

17. In reaffirming the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 as the present position of the Anglican Communion, we pledge ourselves afresh to that resolution in its entirety, and request the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive steps to initiate the listening and study process which has been the subject of resolutions not only at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, but in earlier Conferences as well.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 2:51pm BST

Well Ian, in this case the minority in question are members of TEC who wish to *stay* members of that body. So, of course, one could say there's an "ECUSA agenda" involved - by definition :)

There's no "AC agenda" here because everyone involved is contained within a single Diocese (Dallas) of a single Province (TEC). (this begs the question of whether there is even such a thing as "the AC Agenda" considering the diversity of opinions to be found within all the Provinces ;)

Posted by: David Huff on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 8:59pm BST

You are correct to point out Simon part of the Dromantine statement.

Re #15. Tragically the panel of reference has been a non starter. Meanwhile certain clergy and congregations have been suffering from rather totalitarian bishops and so a lifeline has been thrown and will continue to be thrown to help such who would otherwise lose their orders or the congregation suffer from a completely unacceptable bishop. DEPO has only worked in a few places. A number of my colleagues have only been saved by intervention from overseas. I wish it were not necessary. I do believe that those who dissent from Network bishops have been better treated than the other way around.

re#17. I have been part of such "listening sessions." We "orthodox" have been very rarely listened to. Usually we have been told what is wrong with us and our reasoning for holding our views dismissed. Meanwhile GC 2003 effectively slammed to door on such listening and dialogue. Once polarized it is difficult to recover enough trust for meaningful conversation.

Meanwhile the AC agenda as I put it calls for Biblical Authority as outlined in WR. GC 2006 moved ECUSA in the other direction. The AC call is for interdependence not the in your face calls for autonomy that I read above. This now seems to have produced anarchy and anomie in the AC and the blame muust rest on ECUSA for tearing the fabric. Rather than humbly heed the calls of the rest of the AC, ECUSA seems to delight in pushing an agenda that further alienates itself from the majority in the AC and possibly forcing the hand of Canterbury and the other primates to sanction ECUSA.

It is my firm belief that the dissenting minorities in Network dioceses will be respected and allowed alternate oversight should they wish it. The Dallas dissenters will be respected and well treated. Meanwhile we await an AC solution to a split that has all but happened.

Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 at 9:00pm BST

"It is my firm belief that the dissenting minorities in Network dioceses will be respected and allowed alternate oversight should they wish it. The Dallas dissenters will be respected and well treated." Ian M.

Right sure "dissenting minorities" will be well treated. Tell that to the LGBT Anglicans in Nigeria! Tell that to the LGBT Anglicans in Uganda and/or Ft. Worth!

It is "my firm belief" that self-proclaimed "conservatives", in Dallas and elsewhere, are simply nothing more than grandstanding opportunists light who quote "selective" Scriptural "moral authority" as a cover for fear and hate.

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 2:02am BST

This is the problem, Ian. You want all the movement to be one way. You want your beliefs to be protected and accepted in provinces where they are in a minority, but you will not offer the same to those who think differently in provinces where your view prevails.

No-one is going to have their mind changed in all this argument, which is why there needs to be a split, given that its clear that you cannot work with those who think differently to you.

Posted by: Merseymike on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 10:22am BST

Ian - yes indeed, of course "dissenting minorities" in the Network or CANA or AMiA would be well treated

AKinola has made very very clear that practicing gays, lesbians, and their straight supporters are simply not Christian, and have no place in church while they maintain support for their position. We should be denied communion and cannot have any kind of leadership role whatsoever. This the same policy as Reform in the UK.

Network bishops wishing to remain in good standing with the Global South will obviously need to adopt these policies. If you split from ECUSA over ECUSA's inclusion of gays - how can you have a church in your own diocese which practices everything you abhor? How can you allow such a church oversight from a bishop you consider at best heretical, but in fact Pagan; and how can you allow property that has been built up by generations of Christians to fall into such hands!

Posted by: Sinner on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 11:08am BST

Merseymike...

You're right on the mark, except I wouldn't say there needs to be a split. I would say that those who will not work within the system, and are trying to destroy the church (Duncan, Iker, Stanton, etc.) need to LEAVE. If they will not abide by the decisions of the decision-making bodies of the church (General Convention), they need to either resign and renounce their orders, or translate into another church in the Anglican Communion. They don't get to stay and create havoc and chaos by trying to implode TEC. And they don't get TEC property and assets.

Posted by: pete on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 12:17pm BST

Amazing remarks - +Nazir Ali described the situation as two religions. It seems that a formal split will be inevitable and a de facto split already exists. Let the innovators who wish to change the beliefs and rules depart. We will continue as the Anglican Communion in the USA from which ECUSA has departed. Good bye!

Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 1:19pm BST

Ian, you sure are "amazed" a great deal of the time.

What part of this don't you understand. Either get happy, work within the existing structures of the church to achieve change, or LEAVE. Go start your "No One But Us" congregation with Duncan, Iker, and Stanton (with Akinola pulling the strings), but leave the property, pension, and clergy order behind. Either you're in the Episcopal Church or not. There is no Anglican Communion Church you can join, and you don't get to subvert the Episcopal Church to achieve that which you cannot achieve within the structures of the church. Show some integrity, stand by your convictions, and GO!

Whew!

Posted by: Pete on Thursday, 17 August 2006 at 3:20pm BST

Pete: -
This is getting very personal. My integrity and commitment to my orders taken in June 76 require me to be faithful to the following vow (amongst others)
Bishop. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to
banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and
strange doctrines contrary to God's Word?

I take that vow very seriously, especially when the leadership of ECUSA has done all that it can to promote another religion. I am "amazed" that you would want me to betray God and those vows by asking me to follow another religion even if espoused by bishops or angels.

Gal. 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ESV

Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Friday, 18 August 2006 at 12:36am BST

Ian,
From the point of view of any Christian prior to the Reformation, there are numerous "strange doctrines" espoused by the Anglican Church. What others have you tried to drive away?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 18 August 2006 at 11:38am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.