Two radio reports today:
Same sex blessings
The worldwide Anglican Communion finally gets to see the Eames Report this month. Named after Archbishop Robin Eames, who chaired the commission, it’s meant to chart a way forward out of the crisis over same sex blessings and the election of the practising homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson. Conservatives in Africa and around the world want The Commission to recommend throwing the Episcopal Church USA – or ECUSA – out of the Anglican Communion. And also to reject the man it endorsed as Bishop of New Hampshire. Many predict schism if the American Church isn’t called upon to “repent”. But as Jane Little reports from New Hampshire the break up is already happening. Listen here (9 minutes)
Women Bishops
The long standing row about whether women should be able to become Bishops in The Church of England, and whether one day there might be a woman Archbishop, is coming to a head. Next month the so called “Rochester Report” will be published but its contents have been widely leaked. It will apparently put forward seven options, from which Synod can choose. For Forward in Faith, the organisation which opposes the ordination of women as Bishops, or indeed as priests, there are only two options which they will outline in their own report, to be published next Friday. These are either to maintain the status quo where all Bishops are men, or set up an independent or free province of the Church for those who cannot accept women Bishops. Roger Bolton reports. Listen here (7 minutes)
The Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold issued this letter to the HOB members after the meeting, which discusses plans for Lambeth Commission followup and contains at the end of it the text of a resolution passed concerning the transfer of clergy between dioceses. The letter is here among other places. The wording of the resolution is also below the fold here.
Bishop John Chane of Washington DC issued a letter concerning the visits of bishops to his diocese. You can read it on the diocesan website here.
Mind of the House Resolution
Resolved: That the transfer of a canonical residence to a diocese in another Province of the Anglican Communion shall meet the following guidelines:
(a) The bishop is satisfied that the ministry of the person requesting transfer is to be exercised within the geographic boundaries of the diocese or the Province of the Anglican Communion to which the transfer is to be made.
(b) The bishop is satisfied that there are no pending disciplinary proceedings or related matters regarding the individual requesting the transfer.
(Explanation: The House of Bishops rejects the practice of transfer of canonical residence to allow a priest or bishop to exercise ordained ministry outside of the geographical boundaries of his or her canonical license.)
In Los Angeles, Bishop Bruno has said that he will not take legal action against Bishop Maurice Benitez: Bishop to Hold Off on Charges
Meanwhile NACDAP has published this Analysis of Bishop Bruno’s Lawsuit Against St. James Church, Newport Beach (it would be more comprehensible if the source documents were available)
The ECUSA House of Bishops has held a meeting in Spokane. Larry Stammer reported on it this way: Bishops End Session With Hope and here is the ENS press release, A word to the Episcopal Church from the House of Bishops.
Another ENS press release is subtitled House of Bishops informed of network leaders’ plan to launch parallel agency and refers to this announcement by NACDAP: Anglican Relief and Development Fund Launched. The same body had earlier claimed that SUPPORT AND RECOGNITION OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION NETWORK INCREASES. The figures in that release deserve some analysis in due course.
Yet another item of interest from this HoB meeting is on titusonenine and is Bishop Epting’s House of Bishops’ Presentation concerning the status of ECUSA’s ecumenical relations.
A new story in the Daily Pilot by Deepa Bharath
St. James secession nets lord’s judgment
NEWPORT BEACH — St. James Church leaders hailed a former archbishop’s criticism of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles for suing three churches from the diocese.
The Canadian Anglican Journal has a useful reprise of previous events:
ECUSA’s troubles continue with three parishes seceding
Stephen Bates reports in the Guardian
US bishops’ cash threat as split over gays widens
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is being warned that North American bishops will cut off funds from the Anglican church in Africa if they are disciplined for supporting the election of a gay bishop, in a row which threatens to split the worldwide church.
Update This story is generating a lot of comment from Americans, see for instance Money, sex and power by Doug LeBlanc which has lots of links to related material.
Ruth Gledhill reports in The Times
Carey fights for the palace Batman
THE former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, has spoken out in support of the intruders at Buckingham Palace, arguing that they were “right to draw attention” to their plight.
He said that the actions of the Fathers 4 Justice campaigners were born out of society’s “sad and sorry departure” from traditional marriage and the increasingly commonplace phenomenon of fatherless families. He also called for a radical rethink of the orthodox Christian understanding of marriage, which is based on St Paul’s dictum that “the man is the head of the woman”.
and the story concludes with this:
He said that the Church must also take responsibility for the situation, having for centuries assigned a submissive and compliant role to married women, which no longer bore relation to reality.
Two further items on the current ECUSA situation which are worth a read:
First courtesy of titusonenine an article from The Living Church magazine
Bryan Owen: Beware of the Trojan Horse
The Rev. Bryan Owen is the rector of the Church of the Incarnation, West Point, Miss.horse; this appeared as a viewpoint article in the September 19, 2004 issue of THE LIVING CHURCH magazine. (The Reader’s Viewpoint article does not necessarily represent the editorial opinion of The Living Church or its board of editors.)
Second, this from the PBS TV programme Religion & Ethics News Weekly
Ongoing Tensions in the Episcopal Church
Correspondent Kim Lawton reports from a conservative Episcopal church in northern Virginia where the former Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the local bishop presided on Sept. 15 at confirmation services — another sign of division over the Episcopal Church’s support of its first openly gay bishop.
Today’s BBC radio programme Sunday has further material about Lord Carey’s visit to Virginia.
Listen here with Real Audio (5.5 minutes) including a substantial interview with the former archbishop conducted by Jane Little.
The BBC’s blurb for it says:
Bishop Peter Lee
“Needlessly provocative” is what the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement called the former Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to fly into Virginia this week to confirm three hundred people into the Episcopal Church. They came from twelve of the nearly two hundred parishes that make up the Diocese of Virginia that officially falls under the command of Bishop Peter Lee. But these twelve parishes are deeply troubled by his endorsement of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and so they shunned him. Bishop Lee says the solution was to invite Lord Carey to take his place, and that it wasn’t, in his view, inflammatory.
The whole of the programme will be of interest to Americans, see the list of items here (this link will break after a week).
See also Religion and politics in America
Lord Carey confirmed in the Diocese of Virginia this week, at the invitation of the diocesan bishop, Peter Lee.
The Washington Post reported it this way:
Va. Episcopalians Enlist Ex-Archbishop’s Services
Here is the Associated Press report as it appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch
Former Archbishop of Canterbury hopes to heal split among U.S. Episcopal churches
The BBC’s Jane Little reported it as: Lord Carey confirms US Anglicans
Although British newspapers had reported the long-planned event some weeks ago, no other British reports have appeared this week.
Frank Griswold has written a letter to ECUSA bishops in which he comments on the forthcoming report of the Lambeth Commission. You can read the letter here.
Update the letter has now been published by Episcopal News Service and that copy can be read here.
on 28 June I posted here an article with this title, written by Mark Harris a Delaware priest. (Subsequently the original article was also published here.)
Mark Harris has today published a new article in which he takes note of new information received. The new article can be read here.
The new information itself appeared on titusonenine on 5 September and can be read in its original form here together with numerous comments about it, and referring back to the original piece.
You can read a further critique of the new article by Mark Harris from a conservative viewpoint here.
Update later comments from titusonenine can be read here.
On the BBC’s Sunday radio programme an interview with Frank Griswold
Listen here with Real Audio. 6 minutes long.
The BBC’s blurb:
On Friday it was announced that the Lambeth Commission on Communion will publish its report on the 18th October. The commission, chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames is trying to find a way of holding the fragmenting Anglican communion together. The commission says it expects to propose radical changes in the ways Anglicanism relates to its different constituencies. The Dean of Southwark, Colin Slee, has now warned that a “civil war” could result. This latest and gravest crisis was triggered by the decision of the Episcopal Church in the United States, ECUSA, to elect the practising homosexual Canon Gene Robinson, to the office of Bishop, and by the blessing of same sex unions in Canada. The man who consecrated Gene Robinson is the presiding Bishop of ECUSA, Frank Griswold, who is preaching in St Paul’s Cathedral later today. Earlier Roger asked him how he would react, if as has been rumoured, the Eames Commission recommended ECUSA be disciplined? Would a civil war result?
Since earlier in the week, a number of further reports have appeared:
9 Sep Daily Pilot “Community Commentary” by Timothy Titus St. James property debate stacked against local church
10 Sep Daily Pilot “Readers Respond” St. James secession emotional
10 Sep titusonenine Statement in Response to Lawsuits Filed on September 7, 2004, by the Diocese of Los Angeles and Bishop J. Jon Bruno Against St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s Anglican Churches
11 Sep Daily Pilot Churches respond to diocese lawsuit
Lawyers for St. James in Newport Beach and two other breakaway churches say legal claims show ‘true colors’ of the Los Angeles diocese.
This story is getting more confusing.
Doug LeBlanc thinks it is impossible for Bishop Robert O’Neill of Colorado to be present in London on the timetable Jonathan Petre has proposed:
Through the space-time continuum with Bishop Robert O’Neill.
ENS has issued an explanation from the Diocese of Massachusetts about why the meeting is happening in the first place:
Massachusetts diocese issues clarification about Bishops’ Meeting in London
The meeting was first discussed among the group in April as an opportunity for two newer bishops and two established bishops to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury and was subsequently scheduled in June.
This shows that Petre also had one name wrong: it is the current Bishop of Ohio, Mark Hollingsworth, not the retired bishop thereof whom he named, who is involved.
Earlier, ENS had issued this note about Griswold’s preaching engagement at St Paul’s Cathedral.
Kendall Harmon asks various questions about why this reporting is happening now, not earlier, and other matters in More on the Trip of the four Bishops to London (scroll down to the part in italics).
Personally, I think that Rowan Williams is entitled to keep his engagement diary private.
Wednesday reports:
Los Angeles Times Larry Stammer Diocese Sues Breakaway Parishes
Episcopalians lay claim to property in North Hollywood, Long Beach and Newport Beach.
Daily Pilot Diocese files suit against church
Episcopal bishop says property belongs to the national church. Local leaders hold steadfast in their secession stand.
AP via L.a. Daily News Southland Episcopalian churches sued for revolt
Doug LeBlanc has reflections on the Los Angeles Times coverage by Larry Stammer in this post on GetReligion: Qualifying a bishop’s words
More coverage:
5 Sep Associated Press via LA Daily News Breakaway parishes meet
5 Sep Long Beach Press-Telegram For All Saints, another Sunday worship
6 Sep Daily Pilot St. James receives a Texas-size boost
Maurice Benitez, former bishop of the Diocese of Texas, encourages nondenominational path.
7 Sep Los Angeles Times Priest Steers O.C. Parish Through Rough Waters
Leader of a church that left Episcopal diocese has had a long journey to the center of schism.
The Los Angeles Times carries two stories by Larry B Stammer under the heading
EPISCOPAL CHURCH SCHISM
Push to Be Inclusive Creates a Divide
By reaching out to homosexuals, L.A. Bishop J. Jon Bruno alienated three parishes. He’s no stranger to crisis.
A Prelate of Evangelical Intensity
Ugandan berates the American church and says it’s departed from historic teachings.
And the Daily Pilot had this editorial comment:
Church practicing what they preach
There is also material about Los Angeles, including a quote from Archbishop Orombi, in this BBC radio report by the Sunday programme which deals first with the Lambeth Commission story. Listen here (Real Audio)
The Church and homosexuality - Liberal Anglicans in Britain have told us they may seek Episcopal oversight from pro-gay American Bishops if the Church of England supports the Anglican Communion in disciplining the American wing of the church for supporting homosexuality…
First, a reprise of events so far is available in this NPR radio report:
Gay Bishop Ordination Still Rocking Episcopal Church which includes interview quotes from Bishop Bruno
Second, and new today:
Larry Stammer Los Angeles Times Bishop Asserts Control
L.A.’s Episcopal prelate assigns assistant bishops to take over three breakaway parishes.
Deepa Bharath Daily Pilot L.A. bishop fires leaders of churches
Head of Episcopal diocese informs pastors, vestries of three breakaway churches, including Newport Beach church, that new priests, directors to take over in their communities.
Update Orange County Register 3 parishes’ Episcopal clergy replaced
Copies of a letter to one parish about this from Bishop Bruno, and of the press statement issued by all three parishes in reply to these letters can be found on titusonenine headed The Episcopal Controversy in Los Angeles Escalates Still Further
Updated Tuesday 31 August
Los Angeles Times Breakaway Parishes Refuse to Hand Over Their Records
Daily Pilot Churches fire back at claims of diocese
Long Beach Press-Telegram Churches refuse demands
Associated Press version via San Luis Obispo Tribune Breakway Episcopal parishes reject refusal to surrender churches
Another story, from The Monitor (Kampala) Orombi Backs US Break-Away Parishes via allAfrica.com
“It is a distress call from those parishes which did not support homosexuality. They were literally desperate. It’s like when someone’s house catches fire and they are screaming for help, you just can’t turn away. We are not asking for administrative jurisdiction. Those [breakaway parishes] need our fellowship,” Orombi said, adding that Uganda had been approached for help and not the other way round.
…Orombi said the American Episcopal Church’s support to gays had betrayed the position of the global Anglican community during the Lambeth Conference in 1998 when 800 bishops voted against the practice of homosexuality.
“We all agreed to keep the traditional view of marriage. Afterwards they went ahead to approve the election of a gay bishop, Gene Robinson,” Orombi said.
And another Ugandan newspaper, the Kampala-based New Vision has Three US Parishes Join Luweero Diocese via allAfrica.com
Three more items - Monday 30 August
The Episcopal News Service has a further report on this:
Los Angeles bishop seeks reconciliation with departing clergy, parishioners as legal deadline nears
LA Daily News Standing firm in secession
And this from The Monitor (Kampala) via allAfrica.com dated today:
Anglican Church Oversees US Parishes
Uganda’s Anglican Church has offered leadership to three parishes in the US after they fell out with their local church over disagreements on homosexuality.
US media reports say the parishes of Newport Beach, Long Beach and North Hollywood, all in Los Angeles, decided to ally with Uganda in defiance of the Episcopal Authority of LA Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Jon Bruno, because he supported gay marriages.
Uganda, which also opposes homosexuality, has accepted to lead the dissident US churches. It is reported that the Rt. Rev. Evans Kisekka, the Bishop of Luweero, said he would act as the bishop for the three parishes, a position reportedly backed by the Church of Uganda. Kisekka could not be reached for comment yesterday.Sources within the Anglican Church confirmed the development yesterday. A highly placed source said Uganda had accepted pastoral oversight over the US churches, but would not be taking over administration.
“A Diocese in Rwanda has also taken pastoral oversight over some US parishes as well as some Asian churches which have also taken over pastoral oversight of US churches,” the source said, but declined to be named.
…Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi said he would offer an explanation today.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that:
Episcopal Diocese Demands Property
and the Long Beach Press-Telegram carries:
Parishes asked to give up control
while the Daily Pilot has:
Pastor leads church in secession struggle.
And here in the UK, the Guardian finally noticed the story, as Stephen Bates filed this brief report:
US parishes defect as gay rift deepens.
Update
Across the USA, this Associated Press report is now appearing:
L.A. Episcopal diocese demands property from breakaway parishes here via the San Diego Union Tribune
According to the Church of England Newspaper the retired bishop of Texas Maurice Benitez will exercise pastoral oversight, on behalf of Bishop Kisseka of Luweero, over the (so far, three) Los Angeles parishes who have separated themselves from their geographic diocese.
This information is included in the report Americans win support which also covers the George Carey in Virginia story, as well as the Los Angeles/Uganda one.
The latter is not mentioned in this week’s Church Times although that paper does have a report on the Virginia matter Carey becomes flying bishop in Virginia as well as a brief mention of Robert Duncan’s use of a 9/11 analogy for ECUSA ECUSA is ‘like 9/11’.
update
Another LA report from the Long Beach Press-Telegram
26 August Church leader backs bishop over dissenters
The Episcopal News Service issued this press release on Wednesday afternoon:
which prompted two newspapers so far to print this report by Larry Stammer:
Los Angeles Times Top Episcopal Bishop ‘Troubled’ by Breakaway Churches
Boston Globe Episcopal head raps parish takeover
The lack of coverage of this news story outside Southern California, and especially in the UK, continues to surprise me.
Update
A couple more newspaper stories:
Long Beach Gazette All Saints Breaks With National Church
AP Religion News in Brief leads with an item about LA (here via MyrtleBeachOnline but appearing in papers across the USA)
First three reports from the Orange County Register (hat tip KH)
20 August Showdown on horizon for diocese, churches
23 August Local parish defends split from church
25 August Third Episcopal church realigns
Next another official statement from Bishop Jon Bruno as reported by the American Anglican Council: Third Church in Diocese of LA Disassociates from ECUSA
Updated
24 August Bruno statement now also available from the LA diocesan website
25 August Griswold statement from LA diocesan website
And the official press release from St David’s Church also via AAC:
St. David’s Church Disassociates from ECUSA and Aligns Itself with the Worldwide Anglican Communion
And from titusonenine a reader has sent in the text of a letter apparently sent to all parishioners at (all?) the dissenting parishes by the Bishop of Los Angeles
To the members of All Saints Episcopal Church in Long Beach
A third parish in the Diocese of Los Angeles has announced its relocation to the Diocese of Luweero, Uganda.
Larry B. Stammer in the Los Angeles Times has the story:
North Hollywood Parish Is Third to Leave the Episcopal Church
There was also this in the Long Beach Press-Telegram
3rd church to leave diocese
The parish is St David’s North Hollywood (warning: the front page of its website is over 1 Mb in size) but this page on the Los Angeles diocesan website is small.
The other two parish websites:
All Saints Long Beach
St James Newport Beach
Other recent press reports:
AP wire service based on LA Times Third SoCal parish breaks off affiliation from Episcopal church
earlier AP report Angelican [sic] archbishop supports breakaway Episcopal parishes
The Archbishop of Uganda has issued a statement which has been published so far only by the American Anglican Council and titusonenine and not by either of the two parishes (or indeed the Ugandan provincial website):
Archbishop Orombi Releases Statement Addressing California Churches or
Church of Uganda responds to Los Angeles Churches
Here is an extract from that statement:
We have recently concluded the 17th Provincial Assembly of the Province of the Church of Uganda. During that meeting, the Assembly affirmed the House of Bishops’ stance of broken communion with ECUSA, and at the same time declared its commitment to, support for, and communion with clergy and parishes of the Anglican Communion Network who seek to uphold biblical orthodoxy and the faith once delivered to the saints.
This confirms the status of Uganda which was already listed by me as being among the nine provinces who have broken communion with ECUSA.
Meanwhile press reports from the scene:
Larry Stammer of the Los Angeles Times ‘A New Day’ for Two Congregations (23 August)
Press-Telegram 240 join at ex-Episcopal church (22 August)
Daily Pilot Church secession saga still unresolved (19 August)
Churches read bishop’s letter en masse (22 August)
Press-Enterprise Bishop to answer churches (20 August)
Update The Telegraph on Wednesday carries, under the headline Back-seat bishop this letter from Lord Carey: Responding to the deep divisions. An extract:
…I must make it clear that I have not sought out this engagement – indeed, I am well aware of the way this action could be perceived.
However, the Bishop of Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee, a close friend of mine, invited me to conduct the confirmations with the full knowledge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in some of his most thriving parishes which, sadly, are now estranged from him.
I salute Peter Lee’s spirit of generosity and humility as a demonstration that in these critical days for the Anglican Communion it is possible to avoid schism, if American bishops pay attention to the many Episcopalians who are exceedingly distressed by the consecration of Gene Robinson.
—-
The Telegraph today carries a highly contentious story by Jonathan Petre which is headlined:
Carey tour adds to US fears of gay schism
and starts out:
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, will provoke a fresh storm over homosexuality in the Church next month by blessing hundreds of American traditionalists who are boycotting their own pro-gay bishop.
This high-profile intervention by Lord Carey will highlight the growing polarisation in the worldwide Anglican community over the issue and will be criticised as “back-seat driving” by supporters of his successor at Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.
It will also raise the temperature of the debate weeks before the publication of the final report by the Lambeth Commission, the body set up last year by Dr Williams to try to avert schism.
But this event was known about as far back as 4 June at least, when it was reported in the Washington Times that:
…several Northern Virginia parishes are refusing to even allow Bishop Lee or his two assistant bishops to perform confirmations on parish property. The two sides compromised this week by agreeing to fly in retired Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who will preside over a mass confirmation ceremony on Sept. 15.
and references to the scheduled event can be found on the websites of several of the parishes involved.
The Telegraph article also says:
More than 100 parishes have now split from the Church and affiliated themselves with evangelical dioceses in Africa.
This is misleading. Very few parishes (maybe 10?) so far have split from ECUSA as a result of last year’s events, although no doubt more will. This figure of 100 affiliations with African dioceses can scarcely be be obtained even by including all those who left as a result of earlier events and formed the AMiA whose website shows a list of around 70 congregations.
Although most of this happened well before Wednesday’s press time, there is not a word about it in this week’s Church Times. So here it is…
This week two parishes of the Diocese of Los Angeles declared themselves out of communion with ECUSA and to have joined the Diocese of Luweero in the Anglican Province of Uganda, and placed themselves under the jurisdiction of Bishop Evans Kisekka.
Here’s how it unfolded in the Los Angeles Times where Larry B Stammer reported:
17 August Episcopalian Parishes Split Over Gay Bishop
18 August Parishes Split Off Over Gay Issues (note also correction to previous day’s story)
19 August Bishop Orders Priests to Stop Work
Other press reports:
18 August AP Pair of SoCal Episcopal parishes break rank with national church
18 August Daily Pilot Church drops ‘Episcopal’ from its name
18 August Contra Costa Times Episcopal congregation splits from U.S. church
18 August Press-Telegram 2 local parishes leaving church
Episcopal News Service
17 August Two Southern California parishes vote alignment with Uganda diocese
19 August Bruno inhibits breakaway Los Angeles clergy
Here are the documents issued by the participants:
Diocese of Los Angeles
17 August: Statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop scroll down
Pastoral letter from Bishop Jon Bruno issued 17 August to be read at every service in all churches of the diocese on Sunday 22 August.
St James Newport Beach
Press Release
Fact Sheet
Clergy Statement
All Saints Long Beach
17 August press release in pdf format
17 Aaugust fact sheet also in pdf format
Two 17 August entries on titusonenine contain html copies of the releases from them:
Two Major Calif. Churches Disassociate From Episcopal Church USA
Still More on the Two Los Angeles Area Episcopal Churches
And in case you thought the AAC and NACDAP were missing from the original story, three press releases appeared two days later:
19 August Statement by the Clergy of St. James Church, Newport Beach, Calif., and All Saints’ Church, Long Beach, Calif.
19 August Churches in Diocese of Los Angeles Leave Episcopal Church
19 August ACN CONVOCATION DEANS COMMENT ON TWO CALFORNIA CHURCHES’ DISASSOCIATION FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
On 15 June, Robert Duncan Bishop of Pittsburgh, gave testimony to the Lambeth Commission, and the full text of his prepared statement has been published as a pdf file here. An html version is available here. A press release concerning it can be found here.
Three other persons representing the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes [despite its title, a wholly United States- based organization] also gave testimony, and they can all be found here. Originally, i.e. on 22 June, the Network then said:
In deference to Lambeth Commission, the presentations will be released to them for posting on the official website and may be accessed at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/lambeth.asp (not of course the official website)
None of the Network testimonies have (yet?) been published by the Commission itself, although very many other documents are available here and here and here and here.
Although the most remarkable aspect of his testimony may well be his comparison of recent events in ECUSA to the bombing and subsequent collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Bishop Duncan’s testimony also includes the following paragraph (my emphasis added):
Thirteen diocesans, given impetus by four other Communion primates, agreed to create the Network in November. Representatives of twelve dioceses and six convocations (groups of parishes in non-Network dioceses) chartered the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes in January 2004. To date nine of those dioceses have ratified the charter, Albany becoming the most recent just this past Saturday. Within the six convocations, 43 congregations (within 22 non-network dioceses) have thus far taken vestry action to associate. Many times this number have such action under consideration, and this frequently in the face of direct opposition from the local bishop. 14 Provinces (all among the 21 Provinces who have announced some form of broken communion with ECUSA) have to date recognized the Network.
I have discussed here ad nauseam the unsubstantiated claims repeatedly made concerning both the number of provinces, and the number of primates acting personally, who have taken actions against ECUSA.
I know of no evidence to support a claim of 21 provinces breaking communion with ECUSA. As I have shown previously (dated 13 July, so after the testimony under discussion here), the most that can be proved with certainty is a mere nine. Indeed I think that 21 maybe the largest number yet claimed for provinces.
As to how many provinces (not merely primates) have “recognized” the Network, whatever that may mean, I have no information, and invite anyone who knows to send me or to publish the list of these fourteen. There doesn’t seem to be anything about this at the Network’s website, which is where you would expect to find it prominently available.
One wonders whether the Commission members or indeed the staff of the commission questioned any of these statistics at their Kanuga meeting, or asked Bishop Duncan for the list of 14 names.
I look forward to receiving any additional information, but as time goes by these claims look more and more like the missing Iraqi WMD.
Update thank you Matt for the comment referring to two statements from primates, but this is not the same as provincial “recognition”.
The following article is by Mark Harris, a priest in the Diocese of Delaware, USA.
It was originally written for the HOB/D mailing list. and appears here with Mark’s express permission.
Note also that Mark specifically invites corrections to his work. His email address is at the bottom of his resumé.
On the Matter of the Archbishop of Canterbury naming, suggesting or otherwise initiating the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes
Friends:
Two weeks ago I wrote the HoB/D list asking for information regarding the widely stated proposition that the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes was set up at the suggestion of, given its name by, or was the idea of, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I received a number of replies, for which I thank HoB/D list readers.
What follows is my effort to untangle the various strands of this history. It is unfortunately a bit long, so be forewarned! Now is a good time to stop unless this bit of historical detective work is of interest. I hope it helps to set out the issues in some coherent way.
June 25, 2004
The claim in recent days:
This claim that the ABC is the source of the idea of the Network continues to find its way into the record. The Living Church in its June 27, 2004 issue, in an article by Sarah Tippit-Johnson, repeats the claim, where she writes,
“…national leaders from the American Anglican Council (AAC) and from the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (the official name for the CAN) stopped short of calling for a full-out separation —- even though they acknowledged that the ACN, a network of ecclesial bodies set up on the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is structured exactly like a province.” (p. 5)
Bishop Robert Duncan restated this claim in his response to Bishop Parsley on May 13, 2004.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury first recommended formation of a network of “confessing” dioceses and congregations.”
Neither attribution is a direct quote, and neither states that the ABC actually suggested the form and structure of the network that happened under AAC guidance. “Suggestion” and “recommendation” allows for a variety of interpretations as regards detail, etc. But the recital of the phrase “network of confessing dioceses and congregations” would lead one to believe that the ABC gave prior approval to the Network as it came to be formed, even though its name is The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, rather than The Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes.
So there continues to be the claim made, or the claim reported, that the Archbishop of Canterbury made the specific suggestion for the name or for the idea of setting up the Network.
And the truth of the matter? It is hard to say. However, here is what has come to light.
The argument for such a suggestion:
(i) Anglican Mainstream, reported on the AAC preparations for realignment on October 24, 2003 and in that report quotes Canon David Anderson,
“A first component of the new realignment is the establishment of a “Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes,” which is actually a name given to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
So Canon Anderson claims the name is given by the ABC, although the name used differs - “confessing” being replaced by “Anglican Communion.”
(ii) George Conger reported by email to the HoB/D list,
“Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury made the statements cited by Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh in support of the formation of the Network. He made them on October 15 at Lambeth Palace to four bishops and David Anderson and Martyn Minns. I have questioned Lambeth Palace on this point and have received confirmation of the veracity of Bishop Duncan’s claims.”
Mr. Conger does not tell us the nature of that confirmation (letter, email, conversation?) nor its source. His source concerns the idea of forming a network.
(iii) Bishop Duncan, in response to Bishop Parsley on May 13, 2004 says
“The Archbishop of Canterbury first recommended formation of a network of ‘confessing’ dioceses and congregations. In response to that call the Anglican Communion Network is developing as a biblically-based missionary movement dedicated to upholding a faithful expression of Anglicanism in North America.”
Bishop Duncan attributes to the ABC the recommendation that a network be formed.
Problems with the affirmative answer:
Anderson and Anglican Mainstream make no mention of the occasion on which the Archbishop might have given this name or made this suggestion. Anderson’s remarks followed an ACC special board meeting on October 22-23, 2003, so we know that if made it was before that date. The Anglican Mainstream article references a meeting between the ABC and four ACC bishops and two clergy leaders on October 17, 2003. The Anglican Communion News Service, in an article by James Solheim, mentions only this meeting of the ACC leadership and the ABC. That article makes no reference to an earlier meeting.
So does George Conger know of another meeting held before the Primates Meeting by anyone who could have picked up on the ABC’s idea and taken that to the AAC leadership?
When would that meeting have to have been held? Conger supposes October 15, 2003, but as has been pointed out by others (L. Deimel and J.R. Gundersen) Bishop Duncan already used the title, “Network of Confessing Diocese and Parishes” at the Plano Meeting on October 8, 2003.
Bishop Duncan must too have been making reference to some statement by the ABC prior to October 8, 2003, otherwise it is he and the AAC and not the ABC who gave rise to the idea and name to the effort.
The question is, then, is there a source prior to October 8th for any statement by the Archbishop in which he might have said something like:
“I think it would be important to establish a network of confessing dioceses and parishes,” or
“Here’s an idea: why don’t you set up a network of confessing dioceses and parishes,” or even more ambiguously
“Some kind of network of dioceses and parishes would make sense; why don’t you take up that effort.”
References to meetings between the ABC and AAC leadership after October 8, 2003, are not relevant to the issue as to whether or not the ABC suggested the name or the idea of the Network.
One suggestion (by Joan Gundersen) is that there might have been some sort of conversation at the CAPA meeting the first week of October. See this Virtuosity report referenced by Joan Gundersen, which has the only reference I can find to a meeting between Episcopal Church bishops and CAPA Primates in early October.
In order for this to be of interest it would need to be shown that the Archbishop of Canterbury initiated the idea there himself, or caused that idea to be floated by someone representing him, and that someone from the AAC was there to receive it. It does not serve the interest of the claim to have one of the American bishops or AAC leaders provide the name or idea for discussion, for if the idea is to be the ABC’s it must come from him.
Barring further revelations (or at least citations) I see no convincing basis for the claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested the name, or even the idea, of the Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes.
Arguments against the ABC naming or suggesting the Network:
The question of encouragement: The wider background for the claim arises in the context of also claiming that
“With the Archbishop of Canterbury’s encouragement, the AAC Bishop’s Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight is coordinating requests for oversight.” (see Anglican Mainstream news cited above.)
It is in the larger context of “encouragement” that much of the claim for the ABC’s initiation is paced. Encouragement of a general “networking” effort is not the same as either naming the network itself or endorsing the specifics of this particular network’s actions.
Bishop Duncan, in the Anglican Communion News Service article of December 23, 2003 is quoted as saying that the ABC
“has encouraged the formation of such a network in private dialogue with members of the orthodox caucus.”
This statement is clearly more cautious than that made by Canon Anderson two months before. Encouraging the formation of “such a network” is quite different from naming the network, or even initiating the idea. Bishop Duncan does not specify the date of that meeting. This is of course somewhat different from Bishop Duncan’s own statement of May 13, 2004.
Bishop John Howe identifies only the one meeting between the AAC leadership and the ABC: October 17, 2003. While Bishop Howe does say that he remembers the ABC encouraged a network, he later understood that the ABC
“has made it clear that he believes any provision for Episcopal oversight must be worked out within ECUSA itself, and that he will not be personally involved.” (press release December 19, 2003)
One other meeting, the December meeting of AAC leadership in London, is sometimes mentioned in relation to the question of the ABC’s initiation of the idea. The AAC web page report of the meeting in London to draft a Memorandum of Agreement, reported on December 18, 2003, and the press release related to that make no mention of the claim of ABC initiation, and no mention of meeting with the ABC at that time.
Given the various opportunities for the ABC or his office to acknowledge the claim or for the AAC in later publications to state it as clearly as Canon Anderson had initially, the silence seems to step back from the bold assertion that the
“Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes,” is actually a name given to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
We are still left with two questions:
(i) What of the “private dialogue” and whether or not it took place before October 8th, when the name is first used at the Plano conference? It becomes clear that whatever was said and to whom, the ABC in December did not claim ownership of the idea and/ or engagement with the details of negotiation. The matter of response to the issues of oversight was clearly understood to be something that needed to be worked out within the Episcopal Church.
(ii) What of the notion of being in sympathy with the efforts of the AAC and Network? On February 9, 2004, at the Church of England General Synod the Archbishop of Canterbury said,
“I’ve been following sympathetically the discussions around the setting up of a network within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America engaged in negotiating some of these questions of episcopal oversight.”
This clearly indicates some real interest by the ABC in the development of the Network, but the lack of any suggestion of providing leadership - by idea, suggestion, or engagement - is telling. “Following sympathetically,” is as supportive as he wishes to be.
On February 10, 2004 the AAC wrote commending the ABC for
“the sympathetic reaction that the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes received from the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
The commendation goes on to state that
“This acknowledgement of work with representatives of the Network and the American Anglican Council clearly refutes statements from ECUSA leaders implying no such discussions have occurred.”
But the question is not about there being discussions, but rather about whether or not the ABC indeed named the Network or initiated the idea. For that to be true there must be an event prior to October 8, 2003 in which to place the specifics of that discussion.
Interestingly, of course, the ABC’s statement of February 9, 2004 names no parties or individuals as regards work done. I assume that when he speaks of “the discussions around the setting up of a network within the Episcopal Church.” he is indeed speaking of the AAC efforts. I also assume that when the ABC says, “I have been involved in working with several parties there towards some sort of shared future and common witness, so far as is possible,” he is referring to contacts with the Presiding Bishop’s office as well as with AAC leadership and others. But none of this is stated clearly.
What is most interesting about the AAC commendation letter of February 10, 2004 is that it does not reiterate the claim that the ABC is the source of the idea of forming the Network, much less the person who named the network.
In Summation:
(i) As yet there is no source confirmed for any meeting prior to October 8, 2003 in which the Archbishop of Canterbury or his spokesperson floated the idea of “A Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes.”
(ii) That title was used at the Plano Conference by Bishop Duncan thereby making any subsequent mention of the name derivative.
(iii) The ABC did meet with four bishops and two clergy on October 17, following the Primates Meeting. The ABC no doubt listened attentively and sympathetically to the concerns of the AAC. There is some memory that at that meeting he used the term “Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes.” But because that term was already in use he can not have then invented it. He might well have referred to the idea and perhaps may have been sympathetic to its goals as they were spelled out at the time.
(iv) Later references to the notion that the ABC had initiated the idea and named the group seem to be references back to the initial claim of Canon Anderson, with the exception of Bishop Duncan, who in the letter to Bishop Parsley restates the claim. I wonder if the Duncan statement is written by ACC staff persons who by that time had accepted the earlier Anderson claim. If not, of course, Bishop Duncan has memory of another source. It would be very helpful if he would share that source, the time and date, etc.
Were there discussions with the ABC in which the idea of a Network was floated? No doubt.
Was the ABC the source of the idea, the name, or any sort of recommendation for something not already in the works? I have considerable doubts.
Does any of this matter at all?
Only to the extent that historical memory is a product of those in contention remembering what they want to remember as well as what actually took place, and the extent to which such memories lend credence to the efforts of those in contention.
If the ABC had indeed suggested the idea, named the group, etc, it would raise issues of the extent to which the ABC or his office were attempting to set the course of Episcopal Church development and intervene in the internal affairs of an autonomous church. But it would be a sign of encouragement to the AAC from one of the “instruments of Unity.”
If he has not done so it would raise issues of the spin by the AAC put on otherwise less promising meetings and would confirm the sense by some of us that the AAC overstates its case considerably.
Unless clear and verifiable information is brought out, the claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury first gave name to the Network, or initiated the idea of its formation remains clouded in the memories of a few.
I gather that efforts to get a definitive statement from the ABC’s office have gone unanswered, with the exception of that offered by Mr. Conger. The supposed meeting of October 15, 2003, reported by him, seems immaterial given the address by Bishop Duncan on October 8, 2003, which specifically speaks of the Network by name.
So we are left with the probability that the Archbishop of Canterbury may be sympathetic, supportive, interested, attentive, etc to an idea proposed by others and that something like the network was in the works and the words bandied about for some time. But sympathy is a long way from endorsing or encouraging, much less commissioning the specifics of the Network.
I continue to be amazed by the presumption of calling the “Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes” the “Anglican Communion Network” thereby giving it the supposed status of being THE real connection among member churches in the Anglican Communion.
I stand ready to be corrected on any or all parts of this.
Mark Harris, Clergy delegate to ECUSA General Convention, Delaware.
Below is the full text of the CAPA statement issued in Nairobi on 16 April 2004.
The press release said:
Primates resolve to multiply efforts of fortifying CAPA and African Theology
By Justus Waimiri
Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) Primates met in Nairobi on Wednesday and Thursday this week, and agreed to strengthen the financial position of the African Provinces and CAPA secretariat.
A statement issued at the end of the meeting that went late into Wednesday night and Thursday morning, said the Primates were encouraged by the outcome of the meeting, in which they affirmed the role of CAPA in uniting African Provinces.
They agreed to develop the available economic and organisational resources, and to increase their commitment to CAPA.
The Primates also deliberated on the development of an African Theological and Doctrinal Commission, and agreed to forge ahead with the initiative.
The meeting was attended by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who is also CAPA Chairman, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Archbishop Fidele Dirokpa of Congo, Archbishop Joseph Marona of Sudan and Archbishop Bernard Malango of Central Africa.
Others were The Rt Revd Nicodemus Okille of Uganda, Rt Revd Dinis Sengulane of Southern Africa, Rt Revd Mouneer Anis of Egypt, and Rt Revd Jean Claude of Indian Ocean.
Regarding the controversial sexuality issues, the CAPA Primates affirmed the Lambeth resolution of 1998 and the previous CAPA Primates meeting of September last year, that opposed appointment of openly gay people to church ministry.
However, the Primates expressed faith and “prayerful support” to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Lambeth Commission established by him to study the appropriate measures to take after the controversial consecration of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church of United States (ECUSA), New Hempshire.
The Primates and Bishops also discussed the stalemate that followed the retirement of Archbishop Robert Okine of West Africa, and expressed hope that the issue would be resolved soon. They said they would avail themselves as CAPA if called upon to mediate any contentious issues.
The meeting said it was encouraged by the peace process in the Sudan, and thanked the Government of Kenya for its role in bringing the warring factions together. A special message will be delivered to Kenya’s President, Mwai Kibaki.
On Rwanda, the Primates congratulated the reconciliation going on in the country, and pledged their support.
Below is a full text the CAPA Primates Statement:
CAPA PRIMATES’ STATEMENT
We CAPA Primates meeting in Nairobi on 14th April had a very constructive discussion of the issues that concern our church in Africa. We are encouraged by the outcome of the meeting in which we affirmed the importance of the ownership of CAPA and furthering its development. We therefore recommended the following steps;
a) To work hard to develop our economic and organisational resources.
b) To increase the financial contribution to CAPA.
c) To develop our African theological training programme that would equip our ministers with the African spirituality that is based on the scripture.
In regard to the sexuality issues,
We continue to affirm Lambeth resolution 1.10 of 1998 and our statement of the last CAPA meeting as well as the Primates statement of October 2003.
We are committed to prayerful support for the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan William and his leadership to the Communion in this very difficult time. We also pray and support Lambeth Commission set by him to study the appropriate actions towards those in ECUSA who ignored the Primates’ warnings and violated the historical faith and order of the Church by consecrating a non-celibate open homosexual Priest as Bishop.
We appeal to the Commission to consider the serious implications of not taking a strong disciplinary action against ECUSA, which will definitely tear the Communion apart and will badly affect our ecumenical and interfaith relations as a Communion.
The Primates of CAPA reaffirm the statement that was issued in September last year.
We note that some Provinces have already taken action in declaring a broken Communion with ECUSA as an institution, while maintaining communion with individuals who have stayed away from the official position of ECUSA.
Some Provinces have impaired communion with ECUSA.
The Commission is requested to call ECUSA to repentance giving it a three -months period to show signs of such repentance. Failing that, discipline should be applied.
As CAPA Primates we stand firm to what we have decided that if there is no sign of repentance on the part of ECUSA, the consequences will determine the next line of our action.
f) WEST AFRICA
The question of the enthronement of the Primate that did not take place was received with sadness and asked the secretariat to write to the Dean of the Church of West Africa assuring them of our prayers and expressed the availability of CAPA if there will be need for consultation with them.
g) CHURCH OF RWANDA
We congratulate and rejoice with the people and government of Rwanda on the efforts being made at reconciliation.
We support the Primate of Rwanda, the Council of Churches and the Government of Rwanda in their reconciliatory efforts..
Emphasis on the catechistical teaching of the sanctity of human life and the ministry of healing of memories are of great importance for this situation.
h) CHURCH OF SUDAN
The Primates are encouraged by the progress that was made in the peace process in Sudan. We hope and pray that both the government of Sudan and SPLA would reach the final peace agreement.
i) THE MIDDLE EAST
The CAPA Primates are saddened by the continuing violence in the Holy Land and appeal to the international community to intervene to achieve peace for both the Palestinians and the Israeli people.
Our hope is that Iraqi people resume their peace and develop their country under Iraqi government.
The ENS has a detailed report about the news from the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA): Mixed signals emerge from Nairobi meeting of Global South primates.
This refers to a formal statement from CAPA the full text of which I have yet to find published on the web is now available on TA here, although Kendall Harmon has some earlier notes from Nairobi here, here and here. ENS also refers to a separate press statement by Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town, which again I have not seen the full text of yet.
It contains information about the complexity of American financial support to Africa:
It was not clear what would be the immediate effect of Akinola’s declaration that the CAPA primates would not accept donations from certain dioceses within the Episcopal Church.
“All disbursements for mission from the national budget for this year have been made already,” said the Rev. Pat Mauney, director of Anglican and Global Relations (AGR) for the Episcopal Church. “The disbursements are offered without strings attached. If they decide not to accept, we respect their decision.”
Of the 12 African provinces, Nigeria and Central Africa do not request mission funds from AGR. Of the remaining ten, only Uganda has rejected a $7500 grant, and Rwanda has not yet responded for the 2003-2006 triennium. The CAPA secretariat accepted a $16,000 grant from AGR for 2003.
Other mission funds come through wealthy parishes such as Trinity Church in New York and Truro Church in Virginia, as well as independent foundations and mission organizations. Another source is the companion diocese relationship between American and African dioceses and provinces. Currently 19 US dioceses whose bishops voted in favor of the Robinson consecration have formal or informal relationships in Africa, while another 17 whose bishops voted against Robinso