This is an interesting document, with a bit of something to offend partisans at both ends.

That said, I was interested in the reaffirmation, under the paragraphs of the Windsor Report, of 1) the integrity of provincial boundaries and processes; 2) the expectation that parties in refered matters will have a commitment to seek reconciliation; 3) the important distinction between jurisdiction and oversight, and the clear statement that oversight can be delegated but jurisdiction cannot; 4) the assumption that the framework of the Canadian plan of SEM can be adequate and should be tried first; and 5) a reiteration that the purpose of the Windsor Report was a context within which to pursue reconciliation within the Communion, and not to pursue a confessional clarity that may divide the Communion.

The url given above won't open for me...(perhaps it's just as well ?)

Simon adds:
Others have reported problems also. But it works for many others, so please just keep trying.

A good summary Marshall.

I think the recommendations for involvement of the SEM bishop in the ordination and deployment process is a very reasonable and appropriate one, especially for parishes who fear the bishop may try to bring them in line by appointing a rector closer to the bishop's thinking.

I'm not sure though, about the unqualified call for the diocese to drop disciplinary proceedings and to expunge the records of the clergy involved. It would seem that would be a proper step only if those clergy submit to the recommendations of the Panel.

Paragraphs 21 and 25 in particular strike at the root of the claims made by dissenters that the ACoC is not in communion with the C of E -- a claim echoed in the Episcopal Church by our own dissenting minority. It would appear the Panel is continuing the theme limned out by Canterbury himself: that the legitimate structures of the various provinces are responsible for working out arrangements for delegated or alternative oversight, and that the Windsor process is very much that: a process for discernment with openness to changing consensus rather than a set of demands for adherence to an immutable tradition.

Statement from the Diocese of New Westminster now on line

http://vancouver.anglican.ca/diocese/News/tabid/27/ctl/ViewArticle/ArticleId/384/mid/486/Default.aspx

OK
Thanks Simon.
I tried the Church of Canada site too, and this wouldnt open there either--must have a basic fault, perhaps that makes it work fitfully (I like that word).

Tobias' point is well made. However for progressives the devil may be in the detail.
The panel of reference recommends that the dissenting parishes be offered "assurance of continuity for their distinctive theological tradition". To this end the diocese is required not to move against church property, and for the Episcopal visitor to be involved in the selection of clergy.
The diocesan bishop is required to be on his best behaviour. The selection of the first rector for a dissenting will put this new scheme to the test.
On the financial side, the requirement for parishes to pay their assessments is matched by the return of former mission congregations to the diocese. It is possible that this will mean a net outflow of diocesan funds to the dissenting congregations.

Dear Obadiahslope,

I don't find those details devilish in the least, and support the notion of permitting parishes to maintain their theological traditions, and their access to property, _so long as they remain in union with the diocese and abide by the canons of the church._ However, should parishes move to pull out of the diocese or otherwise sever their ties with it, it would appear from paragraph 21, and the language of the recommendations, that they forfeit any expectation treatment "as" Anglicans. We are not a church of disorder.

Note as well that only past charges against clergy are to be expunged: any future misbehavior will be addressed under the canons. The slate is to be wiped clean, but the clergy and dissenting parishes are also, along with the diocese, expected to be "on their best behavior." This is actually what I have always advocated: following the rules of appropriate dissent within the system. The Panel is reasserting some very basic principles of good church order.

Finally, it is fascinating (but expected) to see +Gomez' and +Venables' reactions. Note in particular his talk about Windsor's "notion" of future "adjudication" of the sexuality issue -- a word and concept foreigh to TWR, which if anything remains open to the possibility of eventual change in the traditional teaching. There is all the difference in the world between the emergence of a new consensus (TWR language at Paragraph 134) and an "adjudication" -- which it appears +Gomez thinks may happen sooner rather than in the long time frame TWR appears to envision. Moreover, +Gomez appears to fail to recognize that at present _there is no judicatory_ in Anglicanism capable of making such an adjudication. That may be lamented by those who long for a Communion Covenant (such as +Gomez) but it shows the slippage I've referred to on as from "wishes" to "horses".

Simon, Fr. Jake's link doesn't work..thank you.

NOW FIXED.

Three cheers for the Panel of Reference for maintaining Anglican sanity in an era of insanity perpetrated upon TEC and General Convention by the usual suspects, the schismatic Duncanites and their spikey associates who refuse to accept the PB-elect Schori because she is a woman and a 'convicted' heretic without the benefit of a heresy trial by the 'haters' of Dame Julian of Norwich (if not hate of Dame Julian, is it plain ignorance of her opus?).

obadiah, I do agree about deployment to one of th dissenting parishes being a major point. However, that may not come to be an issue. First, the recommendations for Shared Episcopal Ministry in the Panel's report are only for a limited period of time (although a renewal could, presumably, be negotiated). Second, the Canadian Synod and House of Bishops will need to do some work to define what it means that the delegated bishop "participates fully" in deployment decisions. The clear context of the Panel's report would suggest that such participation would not be to the exclusion of the diocesan bishop.

Finally, any discussion of what might or might not work is moot until we see that the congregations in question actually accept the recommendations for themselves. Considering the subsequent statements by Archbishop Gomez and Archbishop Venables and their determination that this report is "an inadequate response" (where have we heard that phrase before?), it is certainly conceivable that the congregations in question will simply choose to walk away. All too often the commitment to reconciliation after a thorough discussion falls prey to the decision that there's no possibility of reconciliation, and so no value to discussion.

A couple of responses to the Stand Firm article.

Since when has the Canadian Church not been able to participate in the Instruments of Communion (I am assuming that +Gomez actually means Instruments of Unity). We are still in communion with the ABC as the Panel's report makes clear. We are still going to attend the Primate's meeting. There is every indication that we will be invited to Lambeth (including +Ingham). And it was our decision not to participate actively in the ACC. We honoured the request coming out of the Primate's meeting (and I have some reservations about that) but it has been made very clear that it was our choice and not the mandate of anyone. The misconception about our being able to participate negates his arguement about the Diocese of New Westminster not being in communion with the whole Church of England (or at least in the sense in which he phrases it).

In regard to +Venables speaking about the Panel. I find it ironic that the Panel was created from a request by the Primates themself and now that +Venables does not like the response, he's decided that they may not have relevance. Does that mean what the Panel has to recommend is only valid as long as it toes the line that the Global South has drawn.

And in both responses nothing is said about what the Panel had to say about crossing boundaries.

Ann Marie

Marshall,
the panel aims to "preserve the distinctive theological tradition" read evangelical, of the parishes. That is the aim of the provision for the episcopal visitor to participate in the selection of clergy. They have an effective veto over the diocesan bishops appointment of a rector, in that they have to sign a license.
OTOH if the diocesan bishop refuses to sign, this reconcilation will be seen to have failed.At this point the panel's scheme has real teeth.

Tobias,
it is worth remembering ( not that i am accusing you of forgetting) that there were eight churches that walked out of the New Westminster synod in protest at SSBs. Four have found alternative oversight similar to AMiA. The four churches in this report are essentially the dissenters who did not cut their ties - the stayers. They wanted protection from their bishop. Have they got enough? I don't know.
We have discussed what a tougher DEPO might look like. I suspect that is what the panel has been trying to describe.

Gomez, Venables, Duncan, Iker et al are clearly 'self conceited brethren' who are only interested in what is 'hammered on their anvil' (Preface to KJ Authorised Bible).

Authority must say what they want it to -- or else it has no authority ! But this is very Anglican, in fact.

The various traditions -- as we all know full well -- look to different sources of tradition and hold faith and practice it in hugely varied colours from the peacocks of the outer reaches of Papalist Anglo-Catholicism to those flightless, dull browish birds of -- well, another end of the spectrum (oh that was wicked!).

Seriously, even the 'Papalists' pick-n-choose to their hearts content e.g. priestly celibacy is seen as lacking authority -- though they tend to be a bit sneezy about guys who marry (speaking from some years within this tradition). I once attended a church that revealed in the fact, that for most of its century of existence, it had been "under the Episcopal Ban". -the Evangelical bishops of Liverpool baulked at reservation -- let alone Benediction, the mass itself -- let alone relics, lace, let alone gin. They did pray for the Diocesan though -- and if my memory serves , he followed the pope and then the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Meanwhile my Evangelical parish church -- well not exactly flightless, of course, but the bread was definitely of the sliced variety....

I have come to love all this -- its so crazy, so colourful, so human-and usually does no harm to anyone, as long as they all co-exist, and bumble deliciously along together. Afterall we have all emerged from a kind of process of evolution.

I did love going to 'the early service' all simple beauty and Cranmer; and then on to the High Mass for an experience less sober, but nonetheless beautiful. And yes, Fr. Pugh sometimes preached on John 3 and being born again. And Mr. Ormiston believed in order and the BCP (& CP-AS chorus books). So it doesn't all have to be split off and I'm sure I wasnt alone in this -- ah, my mispent youth !

(Now I feel more kindly disposed towards the bishops I began by excoriating--but they too must learn to 'Live & let live'. )

"And in both responses nothing is said about what the Panel had to say about crossing boundaries."

I am shocked, shocked that they don't manage to mention border crossing. They never do. Being a "Windsor Bishop," as some of ours claim to be, never means paying any attention to that part of the Report. What a tiresome bunch of whiners they are.

Well, all of this i s rather predictable, isn't it?

obadiah, I agree completely. I would even hope that they will find both reconciliation and maintainance of the traditions of each parish. I had conversation recently with a former colleague from the Diocese of Michigan, notably a "progressive" diocese for some time. He reported to me that St. John's Church in Detroit, conservative enough to still preserve worship with the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer (the previous book), remains in the Diocese and has recently become a little more involved (his description). They have grown, if in his opinion largely by movement of conservative Episcopalians from other parishes. However, at this point they remain in Diocesan Convention and also maintain their traditions. I do believe it is possible.

My concern is that the congregations themselves won't give it a chance. So many requests for "alternative" (rather than "delegated") oversight call for exclusion of the diocesan ordinary. So, would they reject on principle the fact that the diocesan has also to sign off on a new priest, without waiting to learn whether there would be actual conflict? If they're willing to give it a chance, there may well be a priest in Canada willing to come who is interested in the congregational traditions and also willing to recognize the ordinary, who so could be acceptable both to the substitute bishop and to the ordinary.

Obadiahslope,
Yes, that is an important point, and what I was alluding to in reference to parishes staying "on their best behavior" in order to find a reasonable settlement. Those "true believers" who follow Global South advice to "flee the burning house" are placing themselves outside the discussion -- and to judge by the Panel's logic, not quite fully in the Anglican Communion (since being in the Communion, or at least in communion with "the Church of England &c.) is only through the territorial province -- not via affiliation with Rwanda, Nigeria, or Southeast Asia. I remain troubled by the tendency to bolt rather than reason, and the willingness to border-cross to offer "protection." These are to me the indication (or rather further confirmation of my years' old prediction) that we are looking, in the not to distant future, at a split in the Anglican Communion. The Global South is irascible and will not let the Windsor Process work itself out -- no doubt in part because they disagree with (or are blind to) Windsor's opennness to the possible eventual reception of the very innovations that are now so problematical to them.
In the meantime, my hope is that some kind of reasonable settlement can be worked out for the parishes that remain willing to reason, within the outline of the Panel's recommendations.

Tobias
It is only reasonable to add that the bishop needs to be on his best behaviour too. The parishes statement recounts "there has been a distressing pattern of harassment of faithful parishes in New Westminster, again without sanction from the Canadian Church. It is a matter of public record that the diocese has locked a congregation out of their building and fired the orthodox wardens and volunteers, summarily dismissed a priest, ‘terminated’ a mission days before Christmas, and brought charges against the clergy of the protesting parishes."
At the very least it can be noted that irascible bishops are not confined to one part of the globe.
The panel declined to adjudicate these charges, which will complicate further discussions. There are tricky questions to face. Will the missions get their staff paid for by the diocese - as before - for example? There are risks for both sides in this.

Obadiah,
I acknowledge earlier that bishops will need to exercise all charity and grace in dealing with these matters. I am aware of the parish statement, but I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of its claims; it is abundantly clear that other claims made by the dissenters are baseless or exaggerated. I am used to hearing "reasserters" make accusations of persecution, only some of which are well-founded. In those cases where a bishop is actually exceeding his or her canonical authority provisions to protect the innocent are necessary, and restraint should be enforced if it cannot be granted freely. Dealing with dissenters is always a difficult thing -- especially in a church in which it has become common for congregations to think of themselves as semi-autonomous bodies free to make decisions regarding the property of which they are stewards, not owners. This is a base issue of ecclesiastical theology; all the more odd for the fact that the dissenters (who are often advocating a congregational polity) at the same time want to enforce a kind of submission of the national province to an international communion -- as if the concepts of obedience and authority skipped a step. This is why I have always favored dissent from within the system, rather than apart from it.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "risk" in the case of funding a mission. If the mission is needed, and serving a useful function, it would seem to me to be money well spent.

Tobias,
I guess this is one situation where the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. You and I will watch from afar.
From memory the mission congregations had been supported by the diocese in the past with considerable sums of money. If the missions are to become part of the diocese again will equivalent support be available?
OTOH St John's is the largest parish in the diocese -so its assessements will not be inconsiderable. Taking these two situations together will give us a picture of whether the diocese will deal in good faith with its dissidents at least on the monetary level. The other main provision of the safeguards relates to the appointment of clergy. Both the EV and the diocesan have to sign the license. It will be interesting to see if the Diocese accepts this provision - there has been only a general statement of principle so far. It is arguable that having two bishops involved strengthens the parish as against the diocesan. Some will see that as a step twards congregationalism - or maybe not. Will the parishes be able to call ministers from outside the diocese. Trained at say Regent College rather than VST? (Not VTS).
If this works out it may provide a path for DEPO to be strengthened.

Has anyone else noticed that the response of the ANiC letter makes the briefest of nods to the Panel's report, and then largely dismisses it accepting the critiques of Archbishops Gomez and Venables? If the four congregations in question take that line, I fear it does not bode well.

Marshall,
It is indeed striking that the Network response ignores the Panel's report. I guess if the structures of the Communion don't give them what they want, they feel free to disregard it. In contrast with the statement from the diocese, there is absolutely no expression of desire for reconciliation or adherence to the whole of the Windsor Report.

Anyone else struck by the irony of Archbishop Gomez's stance, considering that his own provincial chancellor was one of the authors of the Panel report?

There actually is a difference between the two mission congregations mentioned in the report.

One (the Abbotsford one) had received considerable diocesan support prior to it "walking out" in 2002, which was not subsequently renewed.

The one in Hope is a newly created mission (created by the Network). A number of members of the Christ Church Hope parish (which is still in the Diocesan family) left about 6-9 months ago and formed the nucleus for this new mission.

The problem I see in formalising any relationship with this mission, is that even before the members left, the existing parish was only able to support a part-time incumbent.

Hope is a small town - there is no way IMHO it can support two separate congregations.

As a member of the Diocese, I would be prepared to support some continued funding of the Abbotsford mission (should they wish to return under the terms of the report) as this mission has a realistic chance of becoming self-sustaining.

I would however have concerns regarding taking on a new mission in an area where an existing parish is struggling to survive.

Like the flat earth theories of sex which deliberately fail to comprehend the newish models for sexual orientation/gender variance, the latest conservative leaders' replies to the Panel presume an implicit given godliness which is somehow utterly unavailable to anybody else.

We continue to hear palpably dubious, settled assertions of crisis, leading to vague fears of some inarticulate leftwing church violation that is about to be perpetrated upon the remnant parishes who - though manners do vary - that they are the only righteous left in a location/diocese.

The whole fiery sense of crisis is false and self-serving. No conservative believer is actually in physical or spiritual danger because anybody else bothered to pray with a sensuously committed same sex couple who are building a life together in a local parish, including whatever children they are parenting in the larger contexts of that parish's children.

The notion that doomsday crisis follows inevitably from the committed love and parenting of two men or two women is just the telling clue to this mean-spirited and shrewd narrative conservative effort: Talk loudly in order to transform real, loving, decent partners/parents into an abstract, categorical legacy example of definitive filth and danger.

Such false witness will not work very well to convince anybody who actually knows any real committed same sex life partners/parents. That strangely famliar witness only works for people committed to legacy systems of straight domination and privilege, simple as that traditional superiority legacy is. We all live together on this little planet, and fewer and fewer of us are any longer in quite that much ignorance and fear of the LGBTQ people in our own biological/adopted families of origin, as well as in many of our local parish faith families.

I am fascinated to see that there is no mention of this Pronoucement on either Titusonenine anti-gay website, of on the fulcrum website.

They only seem to want what is 'hammered on their own anvil.'

The question is of course, whether we have 'irreconcilable differences' or differences that can be worked through. There are those on both sides, though one more than the other, who cannot restrain their aggressive impulses and might step on everyone of us in the large middle in order to have their punch up. If the parties are working out an arrangement that will allow them to live and pray together, I do not think it is proper ethically or morally to insist that they continue to fight. Or perhaps I am totally off and God really wants us to burn heretics at the stake again, in which case the apolcalyse is overdue.

Archbishop Buckle's response is now online:
http://www.anglican.ca/pdf/statement-prov-bcyk-061020.pdf

I'm glad to see that he takes a stance much different from his original attempt (prior to his becoming Metropolitan) to exercise jurisdiction over the dissenting parishes as an extension of the Diocese of the Yukon, and that he is much more willing to seek reconciliation and unity.

The Canadian House of Bishops is meeting this week. Maybe an olive branch and a formal offer will be forthcoming?