The Scottish bishops have issued this Statement by the College of Bishops concerning future discussion of issues raised by the Windsor Report in the Province.
Earlier reports of the events leading up to this can be found here and here. Also here and here.
The full statement is reproduced below the fold.
0 Comments3 weeks now since we were told that we would learn more about the Panel of Reference “next week”. The CEN has some information though in its report New ‘Panel of Reference’ role to be limited:
The 12-member panel will be “representative of the Anglican Communion by geography, gender and order” Dr. Carnley noted, with the laity “very likely to be canon lawyers”.
As of May 31, nine of its twelve members had been chosen, The Church of England Newspaper has learned. Several Primates, bishops and church leaders approached by Lambeth Palace had declined to join, citing the pressure of other work.
Another case where an appeal is being made to the Panel of Reference is the Diocese of Recife, Brazil. At least the Province of Brazil will be represented and able to speak at Nottingham, unlike its North American counterparts.
Meetings in London and Cheshire last week gave publicity to the situation in Brazil, where an entire conservative diocese is seeking episcopal oversight from “any orthodox province” instead of from the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil. The remarks prepared for these events were published by Anglican Mainstream as
Remarks from a conflict – “What is right & fair?”.
A further note about this then appeared on the Living Church website as
Brazilian Archdeacon Meets with Lambeth Palace
(This note also reported that the Panel membership would be announced on 31 May.)
The full text of the Seattle Statement, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ is now available on the web in several places:
Vatican copy
Canadian copy or in French
As yet it has not appeared on the ACO website, but this page contains an address by Nicholas Sagovsky delivered in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey on 19 May, and a homily by Cardinal Walter Kasper preached at Vespers in All Saints Anglican Church in Rome on 22 May.
The most balanced Anglican analysis so far is the Fulcrum response to the statement which is here.
A Vatican commentary on the document can be found here.
Earlier TA items can be found here and here.
2 CommentsInformation about the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in June is now available:
Anglican Consultative Council ACC-13 Meeting
Programme of Events
List of Attendees
Some additional useful links:
The ACC constitution
A briefing paper by James Behrens, from Anglican Mainstream which discusses the relationship between the ACC and the other instruments of unity
The Jubilee Campus of the University of Nottingham
Last week there was a major feature on FD Maurice ‘He was an inspiration for social witness’ by Jeremy Morris.
There was also this substantial extract from Mary:Grace and hope in Christ and this article Why there’s nothing to fear about Mary by Nicholas Sagovsky. (He also wrote that week on the same topic in the Tablet).
The previous week, there was a major article by Nicholas Holtam Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, London about his parish church: Looking beyond the church. (This was an edited extract from this year’s Eric Abbott memorial lecture.)
Another feature that week concerned the cleaning of St Paul’s Cathedral: St Paul’s — how clean is this house?
0 CommentsThe names of those who will make the requested presentation from the Anglican Church of Canada at the Nottingham meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council have been published. Unlike the American case, the information comes from an official press release:
Anglican Church announces ‘presenters’ to Anglican Consultative Council
4 CommentsAs well as the four presenters, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, has announced that he will attend at least part of the meeting of the Consultative Council in Nottingham, Eng., the week of June 19…
The Canadian presenters to this special hearing will be:
- The Very Rev. Peter Elliott, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Vancouver and prolocutor of General Synod.
- Canon Robert Falby, Chancellor and lay canon of the Diocese of Toronto and a member of General Synod;
- The Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews, President and Vice-Chancellor of Thorneloe University, member of General Synod for the Diocese of Algoma and a member of the Primate’s Theological Commission;
- Ms. Maria Jane Highway, a member of the Anglican Council of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous partner to General Synod from the Diocese of Brandon and a member of the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee of General Synod.
Last week’s Church Times had a fascinating though lengthy letter from a Canadian, Pamela Bird headed Canadian and US Churches and the Anglican Consultative Council.
The whole letter should be read, but after reciting the history of the ACC’s constitution, based on her personal involvement at every stage, she writes this:
…It cannot, any more than Lambeth Conferences or Meetings of Primates, legislate for the Anglican Communion, but, because it consists of bishops, clergy and laity, duly appointed by their national synods, it does represent the whole weight of the whole body of Anglicanism. It cannot impinge on the autonomy of individual provinces any more than can Lambeth Conferences or Primates’ Meetings, but can make strong recommendations for their consideration.
This preliminary history is necessary to make it clear that the Anglican Consultative Council is not a “club” from which members may be expelled. It is meant more as a forum in which just such issues as sex orientation may be discussed, and a way forward may be discovered and developed.
There have been issues before this latest where solutions have been sought in love and understanding. The ordination of women was one such at its very first meeting, as was also grave misgiving in South Africa over some World Council actions and Anglican participation. The Communion didn’t fall apart, nor suggest that some of its members should withdraw. I should like to stress the word “members”, not “delegates”.
It beggars belief that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States — two of the three prime architects of gatherings and fellowship in the Communion —should be invited to depart or should themselves consider it; or that others of the original member provinces should concur.
The 1978 Lambeth Conference was more cautious than the 1968 one, and back-pedalled furiously. What had been spawned? Bishops seemingly were afraid for their “authority”, and were precipitate in suggesting that the Primates should meet as often, though not necessarily at the same time, as the ACC. This was an episcopal decision only: it did not come from the General Synods or national governing bodies of the provinces, though presumably they were expected to finance the meetings.
Some of the provinces whose archbishops are so vociferous on a certain issue were not in existence when the Anglican Consultative Council was proposed and constituted, largely at the instigation of Canadians in the Anglican Church; the Canadian Church has been foremost in its support of Communion affairs, of MRI, especially in Africa, and the dismantling of apartheid.
Lambeth Conferences of bishops are attended by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury; Primates call themselves together; but the Anglican Consultative Council has a constitution, and exists by the will of the whole of Anglicanism. It must not be conned into thinking that other gatherings can ask its members to withdraw.
Having been so deeply involved in the formation and early history of the Anglican Consultative Council, and being both English and Canadian, I have very serious concern for the continuance of the Anglican Communion. It is unique in its philosophy of unity in diversity, and, through this, it has been able to reconcile many thorny questions. But if the African Primates in question persist in their current paths of thinking, I greatly fear a break-up is probable. In any case, it should be a matter for the ACC — including the Canadian Church and ECUSA — to ponder, until reconciliation is reached.
Anglican Mainstream has published the reply they sent, which is also in today’s Church Times.
13 CommentsSee earlier report on Canada here. Since then the situation in the New Westminster diocese has become clearer.
That diocese has now held a synod and voted to limit blessings within the diocese.
As explained in the official statement, this is not a moratorium, but simply a restriction on the number of authorised venues. Blessings are thus authorised to continue in the seven previously authorised parishes, and also in one additional parish, which had itself only voted to become such a place on April 3. But no new locations will now be authorised until at least 2007. There are 78 parishes in the diocese.
The diocese has also published the full text of the Diocesan Response to Windsor Report which is a 38 page document in PDF format. The press release says:
Whether to impose a complete or partial moratorium on same sex blessings made up only a small part of the report by Oakes and Leggett, but it was the only contentious item. The delegates agreed that sections of the Windsor report suggested too much centralization of power in the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
They also agreed that the Windsor report was wrong to state that the diocese had made no serious attempts to consult with other churches within the Anglican Communion before authorizing blessings.
Reuters report of the synod meeting: Anglicans offered compromise on same-sex unions.
5 CommentsThe Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has issued an Update on Relations with the Anglican Communion. This document is dated 27 April 2005, and refers to a letter of 17 December 2004. from Cardinal Kasper to Rowan Williams.
Part of the Update document reads as follows:
6 CommentsOverview of recent developments
In 2003, the decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to ordain as bishop a priest in an active homosexual relationship, as well as the introduction of a rite of blessing for same sex couples in the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada, created new obstacles for relations between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. As a result of these actions and the uncertainty they created, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity agreed with representatives of the Anglican Communion to put on hold the plenary meetings of the International Anglican – Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM), while maintaining close communication with the Anglican Communion Office and with Lambeth Palace. Established in 2001, IARCCUM is an episcopally led body aimed at fostering practical initiatives that would give expression to the degree of faith shared by Anglicans and Catholics.
Faced with major tensions within the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, established the ‘Lambeth Commission’, mandating it to prepare a report -eventually entitled The Windsor Report – on possible future directions for the Anglican Communion. As part of the Anglican discernment process, Archbishop Williams asked Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, to join him in setting up a joint ad hoc sub-commission made up of IARCCUM and ARCIC members, to reflect, in light of the work of ARCIC over the past 35 years, on the ecclesiological issues facing Anglicans.
When the Lambeth Commission published The Windsor Report in October, 2004, once again the Anglican Communion sought a response from its ecumenical partners. Cardinal Kasper was asked by Archbishop Williams to write a letter offering reflections on The Windsor Report (this letter can be read here ) and, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, travelled to London for conversations with him and staff of the Anglican Communion Office in early February. On both occasions Cardinal Kasper emphasised the importance of clarifying both ecclesiological and moral issues related to the current situation.
The Windsor Report presents an ecclesiology which has broad similarities with that set forward in ARCIC’s agreed statements, and proposes various practical steps to situate the autonomy of Anglican provinces more clearly within the interdependence of the Anglican Communion. In February of 2005, the Anglican Primates endorsed The Windsor Report, and reiterated that the Anglican Communion’s teaching about human sexuality remains that stated at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, which affirmed the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and human sexuality.
The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is of the opinion that these developments affirm the general thrust and conclusions of the understanding of the nature of the Church put forward in the ARCIC dialogue to this point, and that this provides a foundation for continued dialogue and ecumenical co-operation.
Robert Barr of the Associated Press has filed the first wire service report on the establishment of the Panel of Reference.
A copy of his report, which is appearing in newspapers across the USA and elsewhere, can be read here.
It contains some significant inaccuracies:
…a panel to deal with one of the most explosive issues in the Anglican Communion – bishops who cross boundaries to support rebellious congregations
The issue being addressed here is explicitly stated to be: parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities
…and instead affiliated with like-minded bishops from Africa and other areas. These cases are known as “extended episcopal oversight.”
This term is the normal English term used to describe the lawfully appointed kind of oversight. It is precisely this form that those purporting to affiliate with like-minded bishops from Africa are rejecting.
Eight more members of the panel are to be appointed next week.
The number of members shall be “not less than nine”, including the chair. The announcement gives no indication of the actual number to follow.
Some of these conservative bishops have antagonized other bishops by conducting confirmation or ordination services outside their dioceses.
To the best of my knowledge, no active, serving bishop (diocesan or suffragan or assistant) from any NACDAP diocese has conducted any such irregular service yet.
Williams called on all the leaders of the national churches to report within 14 days on all instances of extended oversight in their territories.
No, he called on them to file copies of existing alternative oversight schemes within 14 days, and any subsequent amendments thereto within 28 days. No call for instances of extended oversight to be enumerated has been made in this announcement.
A 1998 resolution adopted by all Anglican bishops declared that gay sex was “incompatible with Scripture” and opposed gay ordinations and same-sex blessings.
The Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 was not “adopted by all Anglican bishops”, but rather the vote was: 526 in favour and 70 against, with 45 abstentions.
21 CommentsAn announcement due shortly from Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office says:
A senior Primate, the Most Rev. Peter Carnley of Australia, has accepted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s request to serve as chair of “The Panel of Reference” created by Archbishop Williams in response to the request of the Primates Meeting in February.
Carnley is the Archbishop of Perth, Anglican Co-Chairman of Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, a member of the original “Eames Commission” on Women in the Episcopate and was spokesperson for the Primates at their recent meeting in Ireland.
The names of the other members of the panel have not been released yet but “will be issued next week”.
The announcement also includes the full text of the legal instrument, dated 6 May, establishing the panel. See below the fold.
For convenience in evaluating that text, here are the relevant quotes from earlier documents:
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 (xii). Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.
footnote (xii) is a quotation from Lambeth October 2003
xii) “ … we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
The full paragraph from Lambeth October 2003 reads thus:
1 CommentTo this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other. We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
Our earlier report on Canadian developments is here and see also this.
The Canadian Council of General Synod met on 6 and 7 May. As explained in the advance press release, the main agenda item was the official response of the Anglican Church of Canada to the request from the Dromatine Primates’ Meeting concerning the Nottingham meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, two bodies with identical initials.
Before the meeting, Anglican Journal published a news story International body will respect Canadian decision in which Kenneth Kearon is interviewed. Anglican Essentials, the conservative lobby group in Canada, had responded to the bishops’ statement this way. The Church Times carried Canadian bishops stop gay blessings and apologise while the CEN saw it as Canada declines request to halt same-sex blessings.
The decision made was:
Canadians to attend but not participate in meeting of Anglican Consultative Council
The text of the resolution adopted by CoGS follows:
1. That this General Synod thank our Primate, The Most Reverend Andrew Hutchison, for using his best efforts to explain the reality of the Anglican Church of Canada to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, and to explain the Primates’ Communiqué to the Anglican Church of Canada.
2. That the Council of General Synod affirm the membership of the Anglican Church of Canada in the Anglican Consultative Council with the expectation that the duly elected members attend but not participate in the June 2005 meeting of the Council.
3. That the Council of General Synod welcome the invitation to the Anglican Consultative Council in order to explain the current situation, the steps that were taken by the Dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada and the General Synod and the underlying theological and biblical rationale with respect to the decision to bless committed same-sex unions.
4. That this Council ask the Primate, in consultation with the Windsor Report Response Task Group a) to formulate the presentation to be made to the Anglican Consultative Council at its meeting in June, 2005, as contemplated by paragraph 16 of the Communiqué and b) to name participants in the presentation in consultation with this Council.
5. This Council encourages the Primate to consider attending the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in June 2005, and to participate in the presentation contemplated by paragraph 14 of the Primates’ Communiqué.
More details of how the decision was reached are contained in the Anglican Journal report, Canadians will not ‘participate fully’ in international meeting – Members will still attend.
Official details of the meeting’s first day can be found at daily highlights: May 6, 2005 and of the second day here.
News reports of the Canadian decision:
Reuters Canada Anglicans to sit out council over gay clash
Canadian Press Cdn Anglicans won’t fully participate in global meeting amid same-sex schism
Update
A Message to the Church has been issued by CoGS.
The Church of the Province of South Africa has issued this statement, on Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in Bloemfontein, 30 November 2004. It restates the Church’s position on Holy Matrimony as a lifelong and exclusive union partnership between one man and one woman, and goes on to say:
Our Church has repeatedly affirmed that partnership between two persons of the same sex cannot be regarded as a marriage in the eyes of God, and that consequently we do not recognise or bless such liaisons. There is currently a well-known process of discussion and debate about matters of human sexuality in our Church but while this continues, our stance remains unchanged.
It then reassures church members that the decision has no implications for religious freedom in South Africa, as ministers of religion are under no compulsion from the state to approve or perform same-sex marriages.
The Anglican Church of Canada has published the Report of the Primate’s Theological Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. The official press release is Theological Commission finds same-sex blessing to be a matter of doctrine.
A summary of the report is here and says:
The full text of the report is here.
The Anglican Journal reports this as Commission finds that blessings are a matter of doctrine.
1 CommentThe BBC Today radio programme interviewed both the Bishop of Trinidad and the Bishop of Chelmsford this morning.
Listen here with Real Audio (5 minutes).
The text released to the press by the Bishop of Chelmsford appears below:
Statement from the Bishop of Chelmsford
I was very sorry to hear that the invitation which had been extended to myself and Lydia, together with a group from the Diocese of Chelmsford to visit Trinidad and Tobago in May this year has been withdrawn by Bishop Calvin Bess.
The links which exist between dioceses across the Communion are a marvellous way in which we can learn from each other the necessary lesson of how to live with diversity and difference of culture and practice whilst sharing a common faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. We remain wholly committed to our link with Trinidad and Tobago, as well as our links with dioceses of our sister churches. We assure them of our love and prayers.
The journey of friendship often encounters times of difficulty and misunderstanding. We do not believe that walking away from the commitments we have made is in the best interests of either diocese, or of the wider communion of which we are a part. We remain committed to challenge and to be challenged by the contributions to the life of the whole Church by our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world.
+John Chelmsford
3 May 2005
The Church of England Newspaper reports this event as Bishop’s West Indies trip cancelled over gay support
17 CommentsFrom Trinidad comes this report in the Trinidad and Tobago Express about the withdrawal of an invitation to John Gladwin to visit there: ‘How terribly unfortunate’.
An invitation extended by the Anglican Bishop of Trinidad and Tobago, Calvin Bess, to Bishop John Gladwin of the United Kingdom to visit Trinidad has been withdrawn, after it was learnt that the latter has expressed solidarity with the pro-gay Anglican churches in Canada and the United States…
However, according to the Outlook, a mid-March story in the UK’s Telegraph newspaper indicated that a group of clergy in Britain had broken sacramental ties with Gladwin in an unprecedented revolt against his liberal views on homosexuality. The Telegraph story stated: “In what could be the start of an escalating conflict, at least eight conservative clerics have told the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Gladwin, that they will refuse to share Holy Communion with him.”
Gladwin reportedly responded by saying that it was his right to express his opinion and that he wanted to give space to those who were anxious about such matters.
This revelation, according to the Outlook article, was the catalyst for Bess-who has the support of the local Cathedral Chapter-to withdraw the invitation, and this was done via a letter dated April 12…
This matter was reported fully here on TA under the heading Ugley Puritans. As noted previously, the original letter to The Times simply restates the fact that the Church of England (and every member thereof, regardless of their personal opinion) is at present in communion with both the Canadian and the American provinces of the Communion.
Update Wednesday
Ruth Gledhill has reported this same Trinidad story in The Times today: Bishop told to forget Caribbean trip after airing liberal gay views. This version of events omits all mention of the Telegraph newspaper. (Those who are unable to access The Times website may find this copy useful.)
It’s worth noting another letter that has been part-published. In the Anglican Journal report on the Canadian bishops’ statement, the following also appears:
Archbishop Williams… also sent a letter to the joint meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) which began April 28 – to which he had earlier been invited to attend but which he declined attending citing previous engagements.
In his letter, which the Canadian primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, read aloud, Archbishop Williams said he remained “hopeful” that the Anglican Communion, deeply divided over the issue of homosexuality, could still move forward together.
“The recent primates’ statement has, I know, been hard for many to hear. But what it represents is an attempt to hold some space for us all to decide where our future lies in regard to the (Anglican) Communion; to think about how we act with the goal of allowing our relations in Christ to develop, not to cut off the possibilities of moving together,” he wrote. “It undoubtedly challenges people on different sides of the current debate; essentially we are trying to find a way of moving forward as a church, not as a collection of interest groups of ‘left’ or ‘right.’”
He added that the primates’ statement “also represents a deep reluctance all round to move hastily in the direction of separation.”
The Anglican Communion’s present situation, he added, “is in some ways nothing new: we are always living between testimony to God’s overwhelming and unsurpassable gift and our own countertestimony of confusion or faithlessness.”
Archbishop Williams said he could not offer “an easy solution to our tensions,” adding, “that would be presumptuous.” But he added, “I can only send my greetings and prayers as a brother in this confused environment, and urge you all to look to the Lord of the church for patience, mercy and renewal.”
Canadian and American bishops welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter, which had come as a surprise. Archbishop Hutchison had earlier admitted to being stung by Archbishop Williams’ decision not to attend the joint meeting, saying he took it to mean the Archbishop of Canterbury did not wish to be associated with the beleaguered Canadian and American Anglicans.
The Living Church has reported that:
Over 40 American bishops and the secretary general of the ACC, Canon Kenneth Kearon, joined the Canadian bishops at dinner on April 27. Originally scheduled to attend the joint meeting of American and Canadian bishops, Archbishop Rowan Williams withdrew from the dinner following the primates’ meeting in Dromantine, saying it would be inappropriate for him to attend given the present estrangement between the North American Churches and the rest of the Anglican Communion. (TLC, March 27)
I can find no public record of Rowan Williams saying anything like this, not even in TLC’s own report.
1 CommentUpdated Friday, and again Saturday
The following statement was unanimously adopted by the Canadian House of Bishops meeting in Windsor, Ont., on April 27.
Statement of Commitment by the Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada April 27,2005
This is their response to the Windsor Report and the Dromantine communiqué.
The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the statement.
The statement was reported by Reuters as Canadian Anglicans Skirt Requests Over Gay Unions in a story which erroneously attributes the US decision on their ACC attendance to the American HoB rather than their Executive Council. The Canadian decision-making body on that issue is the Council of General Synod which meets May 6-8.
Further press coverage
Anglican Journal Bishops agree to hold off on blessings
Toronto Globe and Mail Anglican bishops call moratorium on same-sex blessings
Religion News Service via Beliefnet Canada’s Anglican Bishops Agree to Moratorium on Gay Unions
The Living Church Canadian Bishops Won’t Halt Blessings of Same-Sex Unions
The Times Ruth Gledhill Rebel bishops reconsider same-sex blessings
The reports are a little confusing. In fact, the situation in New Westminster, which is the only Canadian diocese where SSB are at present formally authorised, is unchanged, but will be reviewed at the diocesan synod which meets on May 13 and 14:
Attracting the most media attention will be synod’s discussion on Saturday afternoon on how to respond to the Windsor Report, a document authored by an international group of Anglicans for the Archbishop of Canterbury, which tried to define the nature of Anglicanism.
One item in the Windsor Report is a call for a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions until the next Lambeth Conference in 2008.
A proposed response is being put together by the Revs. Richard Leggett and John Oakes. The two priests, respectively at Vancouver School of Theology and Holy Trinity, Vancouver, come from the opposite ends of the theological spectrum, but together plan to come up with a single proposal.
A pre-synod session on April 16 at which the two men presented a draft response drew more than half of synod delegates, showing high interest in the issue.
Volunteering some of their time during school spring break to help prepare packages of papers for Synod delegates were Jen Nurse of St. George’s, Fort Langley, Stephanie McGee of St. Helen’s, Surrey, and Cara Ingham of St. Mary’s Kerrisdale.
Indicating national interest in New Westminster’s decision will be the presence of Canadian Primate Andrew Hutchison. He will preach at the opening worship Friday morning, and serve as the “synod partner” for the gathering.
At the Canadian House of Bishops meeting that Archbishop Hutchison chaired on April 27, Bishop Michael Ingham along with his 40 colleagues agreed “neither to encourage nor to initiate” the blessing rite until the national Canadian General Synod in 2007.
Bishop Ingham afterwards said that the phrase “neither to encourage nor to initiate” comes from a communiqué issued by Anglican Primates in February, and has been interpreted to mean there should be no further actions beyond those already started.
“I made it explicitly clear to the Canadian House that, in view of the upcoming Synod in New Westminster, I could sign the statement issued today only on the understanding that I would be governed very much by the advice of my own Synod,” said the bishop.
Further update
The Anglican Journal has published this article Council advised to decline primates’ call. This refers to a report reported much earlier.
Two formal statements were issued on 7 April 2005 by Archbishop Peter Akinola the Primate of All Nigeria.
A WORD TO NIGERIAN ANGLICANS IN NORTH AMERICA
In the first of these he says:
10 CommentsI now write to you in response to the recent Covenant statement from ECUSA’s House of Bishops during their spring meeting in Camp Allen, Texas and also because there have been a number of misleading reports about the recent Primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland.
While the statement issued by ECUSA’s House of Bishops expressed a desire to remain in the life and mission of the Anglican Communion, I was disappointed that the only regret offered was for their failure to consult and the effect of their actions instead of an admission that what they have done has offended God and His Church. As was pointed out in the Primates Communiqué issued in February ‘the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered.” ECUSA has yet to grasp this reality and still appears to be chasing shadows. Until this is recognized there can be no hope of meaningful reconciliation.
The statement answered the call for a moratorium with regard to the ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals with a pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any bishop until 2006 – I find this response to be disingenuous since it holds the entire church to ransom for the sin of a few. While they have claimed to answer the call for moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions we know that there are Dioceses where the clergy are still continuing the practice of blessing same-sex partnerships with the Bishops’ explicit permission. I find this duplicitous and I would point out that the underlying issue is not a temporary cessation of these practices but a decision to renounce them and demonstrate a willing embrace of the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted throughout the Communion and described in Lambeth Resolution 1.10.
With regard to the Primates meeting in Ireland I find it highly offensive to hear claims that a group of us were influenced by external forces into taking stands that we would not otherwise have taken. There is absolutely no merit to these claims and I am saddened that there are those who wish to perpetuate this malevolent falsehood. Our actions and agreements were the result of prayerful deliberation and principled conviction. The idea that orthodox Americans manipulated us is an insult – in truth we in the Global South have been challenging them to stand firm. And there were a number of us who felt that the recommendations did not go far enough but out of respect for the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury we were willing to leave space for serious reflection and genuine repentance.
I was appalled by statements claiming that the devil was wandering the halls of the Dromantine Retreat Center – perhaps those who make such observations should first look within themselves before they accuse others. Many of us believe that what we achieved in our time together was due to the work of God’s Holy Spirit and to claim otherwise is blasphemous.
I have noted with disappointment that there are those in ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada who are suggesting that these Provinces should defy the Primates’ request that they voluntarily withdraw their members from the next meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council. I would urge the appointed leadership of these Provinces to weigh seriously the consequences of such actions if indeed there is to be any hope of the reconciliation and healing that we all seek. Moreover I believe that it is an accurate sense of our meeting to say that the Primates do not expect ECUSA and the Canadian church to participate in ANY of the structures of the Communion until they have chosen to respect the mind of the Communion. Until they decide to return – something for which we earnestly pray – the sad truth is that they have walked away from the Communion.
Finally, I need to address the important matter of provincial and diocesan boundaries. As I have repeatedly reaffirmed maintaining good order is important for the work of the Gospel but it can never be used to silence those who are standing for the Faith and resisting doctrinal error. It was our common understanding in Newry that the extraordinary pastoral relationships and initiatives now underway would be maintained until this crisis is resolved. If, however, the measures proposed in our Communiqué to protect the legitimate needs of groups in serious theological disputes prove to be ineffectual, and if acts of oppression against those who seek to uphold our common faith persist, then we will have no choice but to offer safe harbour for those in distress.
The Governing Body of the Church in Wales has been meeting in Aberystwyth. This is the Welsh equivalent of a General Synod.
The agenda for the meeting can be found here.
The Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan, delivered a presidential address which can be read in full here and there is a press release giving highlights here:
In his Presidential Address to the Governing Body of the Church in Wales, presently meeting in Aberystwyth (University of Wales Aberystwyth Arts Centre, Penglais Campus, 6 th and 7 th April) , Most Rev Dr Barry Morgan , Archbishop of Wales has warned his fellow Anglicans about the dangers inherent in the present harsh tone of the debate being conducted within the Anglican Communion.
In his address, delivered today (Wednesday, 6th April), Archbishop Barry makes reference to many of the key events which make 2005 an important year in the life of the UK – the UK holding the Presidency of the both the G8 and the EU, the 20 th anniversary of Live Aid and 10 th Anniversary of Comic Relief, the publication of the Commission for Africa’s report later this month, World Environment day in June, and of course the UK General Election called yesterday for May 5 th .
However, the key point he makes is that while Anglican Christians, should have much to say on many of these key issues, it is difficult for us to be taken seriously when the present debate within the Anglican Communion has been couched in harsh, confrontational tones. In his address the Archbishop says:
If the church of God can’t conduct a debate in a civilised way when it claims to be a reconciled and reconciling community – what message does that give to the world? We cannot as a church call for compassion, peace and justice in our nation and in our world, if we as Christians do not exemplify those virtues in our own lives and in our dealings with one another.
… Referring to the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, due to meet in Nottingham in June, Archbishop Barry says
What is needed at the ACC is not a theological rant or a throwing of verbal grenades at people who happen to disagree with our own particular positions, but a reasoned, balanced, discourse of some of the issues involved and the giving of space and time to every kind of viewpoint. It would be better not to have a hearing at all in June if it is going to degenerate into some kind of verbal slanging match… What we need is not confrontation but a willingness to engage in discussion.
Earlier, the Church in Wales issued its Response to the Windsor Report. You can read this press release or you can read the full response here.
From the press release, in answering one of the four questions posed to the provinces:
What in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A (The purpose and benefits of communion) & B (Fundamental Principles) can you recognise as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion?
the Welsh response says:
0 Commentsa) The Anglican Communion is one that witnesses to the Kingdom of God … The Windsor report is a document which is in our opinion is a milestone in Anglican ecclesiology. It seeks to develop an understanding of the Church as an embodiment of God’s purpose. It is not simply a human construction. Instead it is how God seeks to heal and restore the world for his kingdom.
b) the dynamic nature of the Anglican Communion – Windsor report paragraph 9 expresses the care of Anglicans for each other, and we would want to add for the world … There have been many challenges to injustice, in ways which combine an ecclesiological reality of our common life with a challenge to oppressive political or social practices. It is not at all as though we are confronted with a static institution which has suddenly been destabilised by the actions of a few of its member churches. One of the ways in which that dynamism is expressed is the existence of inter cultural dialogue. One member of our working party who has worked in Uganda said – ‘It is important to recognise that these cultural factors of themselves neither validate nor invalidate traditions of Scriptural interpretation. None of us can or should offer a reading of Scripture free from cultural values. What is important is that the willingness to acknowledge these values.’
c) the authority of scripture in the Anglican Communion – we are glad to recognise in the report and affirmation of the importance of authority of scripture for Anglicans. However we felt that WR 61 in its description of shortcomings in Scriptural interpretation becomes a caricature of itself. We do not believe that those who have pressed for change have sought “to sweep away sections of the New Testament as irrelevant”. There is also the important issue of inculturation (discussed briefly at WR 85) when considering the interpretation of Scripture. Traditionally the Western church has set the theological agenda. That this is being challenged is a welcome sign of Anglican vitality. It is clearly important within the Anglican Communion that both African and Asian readings are heard respectfully and accorded the dignity of being received as valid contributions to theological discussion.
d) The Anglican Communion is one bound together by bonds of affection – we felt especially that that autonomy-in-communion was a fruitful concept for future discussion. Nevertheless there are times when we feel that the report feel that the Report tends to equate diversity with opinions, rather than a diversity of people, forgetting how the Report addresses this issue when discussing inculturation.
Updated thrice – see below
First, two items concerning the story reported earlier here about the Ugandan diocese of South Rwenzori.
The Church Times covered it in Ugandan diocese rejects US funds. This includes a reference to the Washington Post column reported earlier here, and discussed at some length by Andrew Brown in this week’s Press column, not yet online, but here are two quotes:
NO ONE seems to have reported Dr Williams’s complaint in Holy Week that the press was ignoring important things the Anglican Communion was up to. A story in the Washington Post should entirely justify the press’s bias…
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to over-estimate the damage that these stories do. One indicator is Stephen Bates’s largely hostile profile in The Guardian of Dr Williams, whose reputation on the paper seems never to have recovered from a lunch he attended there, where, every time he attempted to say something interesting, he allowed himself to be shushed by an aide. Versions of this story have come to me from several of the people present, on whom it made a lasting impression.
Meanwhile, the Living Church reports the response of Michael Creighton Bishop of Central Pennsylvania to all this in Bishop laments break with Ugandan companion diocese
In an interview with The Living Church, Bishop Creighton said “It felt like a Good Friday nail in the compassion of Christ.”…
Bishop Creighton said he was perplexed by the decision to break relations as the Windsor Report had encouraged “consultation” and not confrontation. “Our Gospel understanding,” he said, is “when people were labeled as ‘sinners and wrong doers,’ Jesus invited himself into relationship, not out of relationship.”
Bishop Creighton said he had written to Bishop Tembo noting “our dismay that our consent to the election of a bishop in New Hampshire appears to be more important than the compassionate ministry we have shown with his own people who are struggling with and dying of AIDS.”
Since the diocese began its companion relationship with South Rwenzori in 2001, Central Pennsylvania purchased a truck for the diocese and provided tuition for medical students, medicines, and other funds to assist the diocese and the Bishop Masereka Foundation—a Ugandan NGO—to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, Bishop Creighton told The Living Church.
“The total of this support exceeds $65,000,” Bishop Creighton said, but he disputed that the Ugandan diocese had requested $352,941 as was stated in Bishop Tembo’s letter.
Update This further Statement from Bishop Jackson Nzerebende Tembo on the relationship of South Rwenzori Diocese, Uganda, to the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, USA has just appeared on titusonenine.
Further Update And shortly after that, two letters to the editor of the Washington Post, one of them from David Anderson of the AAC, also appeared on the web.
Another Update
This article in the Lancaster Sunday News Local, African churches split over gay issue contains further detail.
The same Church Times page also contains (scroll down) two other Communion stories: Bill Bowder on Griswold rounds on ‘evil’ detractors and a brief report on Scottish statement. The first of these includes:
3 CommentsTACTICS used by conservatives to influence the Primates’ Meeting in Newry in February have been branded as “evil” by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA), the Most Revd Frank Griswold.
At the US House of Bishops meeting before Easter ( News, 18 March), Bishop Griswold is reported to have named a group of US clergy, including the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, accusing them of misrepresenting what was happening in ECUSA.
In an interview with Deborah Caldwell for Beliefnet website, the Presiding Bishop said that evil had been “pressing” on the meeting of the Primates in February.
“There were notices put on the tables in Ireland describing ‘acts of oppression’ within the Episcopal Church that were highly inaccurate. . . I said my sense is – and I don’t assign it to any particular people – I feel that there is evil pressing on this meeting.”
Bishop Griswold argued that overseas Primates had been recruited into ECUSA’ s internal struggles. “Various groups related to the Episcopal Church – well-funded, to be sure – have engaged the disapproval of the Primates around homosexuality in order to portray the Episcopal Church as grossly unfaithful and unbiblical, and in every way reprehensible…”