Of interest: PB to bishops on process, canons

[Episcopal News Service] In an April 30 letter to the House of Bishops, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has reviewed and commented on process related to deposition, inhibition, renunciation and resignation of bishops. The full text of  the Presiding Bishop’s letter, posted by email at 10:30 a.m. on April 30, follows here.

April 30, 2008

For the House of Bishops

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:Inasmuch as the past several weeks have involved some significant situations, I thought it would be helpful to review and comment on process. First, regarding deposition for “abandonment of the communion of The Episcopal Church,” it is important to remember that such an act is not by definition punitive, but does give formal recognition to a reality already taking place. Once the Title IV Review Committee has certified that a bishop has abandoned the communion of this Church under Title IV, Canon 9, the bishop in question is given sixty days to respond.

During this sixty day period, Title IV has a provision for temporary inhibition of the bishop by the Presiding Bishop with the consent of the three senior active bishops of the Church. These bishops who must consent to the temporary inhibition do not, however, have a veto over consideration of the merits of the deposition by the House of Bishops, any more than those who must consent to temporary inhibitions in other circumstances have a veto over consideration of the charges by a trial court. This understanding of the canon is held not only by my Chancellor, but also by members of the Title IV Review Committee including an attorney who is an original member of the Committee, the chancellors of several dioceses who have been consulted, and the former Chair of both the Standing Commission on the Constitution and Canons and the Legislative Committee on the Canons at the General Convention.

As the actual vote regarding deposition draws near, it is important to recognize what does and does not constitute a relevant response by the bishop in question. A letter of resignation from the House is irrelevant to the charges brought forward by the Review Committee and the deposition proceedings, since deposition concerns a person’s ordination in this Church, not simply participation in the House of Bishops. Resignation from the House thus has no bearing on following through with the charges brought forward by the Review Committee. Deposition in this situation makes clear in an official way that the bishop in question is no longer permitted to exercise ordained ministry in this Church.

Regarding how the vote is to be taken, the canon is clear that a vote on deposition must occur at “regular or special meeting of the House.” Although we have other canonical consent provisions where consents may be secured by written ballot through the mail, that process does not satisfy the canons here.  Every bishop entitled to vote is invited to the meeting and given ample notice that there will be a vote on depositions. Materials surrounding the deposition in question are posted in the “Bishops Only” section of the College for Bishops website.  The canon is read that a quorum be present and a majority of all bishops present who are entitled to vote consent to the deposition, as was done in the case of Bishop Davies of Fort Worth in the 1990s and Bishop Larrea of Ecuador Central in 2005. In terms of parliamentary rules of order, any questions about the propriety of a vote are to be raised before the meeting or, of course, during it.

These are weighty matters, and it is important that we take seriously our procedures, as well as their purpose and intent. It is also important that we remember the reason that such canons and procedures are in place. These matters with which we are confronted have ramifications for many outside our House. For those who would like an alternative to deposition, we already have one, in the form of renunciation of vows in this Church, so that anyone may pursue his or her conscience and desires in another part of Christ’s Body. This option makes clear and clean an individual’s departure from The Episcopal Church. Resignation from the House is quite different, since it only deals with the person’s relation to the House, not to The Episcopal Church.  Thus, to resign from the House while still claiming jurisdiction over a diocese with its property and assets is not a viable alternative.

Some have misunderstood the impact and intent of deposition. It is this Church’s formal way of saying to the world that the deposed cleric is no longer permitted to act as a sacramental representative of this Church. If vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church are not voluntarily renounced, how otherwise can a cleric take up new vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of another Church?

These are indeed difficult decisions that we at times are called to make, and I have no doubt that all of us would wish things were different. We must respond to the situations with which we are faced, compassionately but not naively, knowing that we make these decisions not for ourselves alone but for the people whom we are called to shepherd and oversee.  I remain

Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori

On the report of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates to the Archbishop of Canterbury

October 4, 2007

Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi (1226)

Sisters and Brothers, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates of the Anglican Communion has issued its report to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the Response of the House of Bishops issued at the conclusion of our meeting last week in New Orleans. It is a significant statement, prepared and signed by the Primate of Australia, the Primate of Wales, the Primate of TEC, the Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the ACC Standing Committee, the Vice-Chair of the ACC and Standing Committee, and four other members of the ACC Standing Committee.

The report—all 19 pages—is well worth reading in its entirety, and may be found through Episcopal Life Online (www.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal_life.htm). For brevity’s sake, however, and to point out significant highlights, I draw your attention to the following excerpts which I trust are an accurate reflection of the thrust of the document. (Those portions appearing in bold print are my emphases.)

I. From the introduction: “…(T)he House (of Bishops) has labored long and strenuously…to offer its response to the requests of the Windsor Report, as reiterated in the Communiqué of the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam…. This reflects the fact that the House of Bishops were themselves of differing perspectives on the questions before them; it also reflects their readiness to respond to the concerns raised by the Communion….”

II. From Part One, “The Response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report”:

“On public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions….

“The House of Bishops has now said that they ‘pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions’…These statements…address the request of the Primates at Dar Es Salaam…. On this basis, we understand the statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans to have met the request of the Windsor Report in that the Bishops have declared ‘a moratorium on all such public Rites’ and the request of the Primates at Dar es Salaam that the bishops should ‘make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses’ since we have their pledge explicitly in those terms.

“On elections to the episcopate….

“…(I)n June 2006, General Convention passed Resolution B033, which stated: …Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion…. By…making the explicit acknowledgement…that B033 does refer to ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group (that is, as expressed in the Report of a Sub-Group established by the Joint Standing Committee) that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were (sic) correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report.

“Conclusion

“By their answers to these two questions, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them in the Windsor Report, and on which clarifications were sought by 30^th September 2007, and given the necessary assurances sought of them.”

III. From Part Two, “Pastoral Issues”

“On care of dissenting groups….

“In March 2004, the Bishops of The Episcopal Church adopted a plan for such congregations in the Statement, Caring for All the Churches…designated ‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’.” (The Joint Standing Committee then recommended that the Archbishop of Canterbury encourage “duly designated authorities of The Episcopal Church…to consult further on the issue of the provision of pastoral care and oversight…in consultation with those who are requesting it…. In particular, such consultation could be taken in conjunction with the scheme for “Episcopal Visitors” announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops Meeting in New Orleans….”) Then, significantly, “We believe that these initiatives offer a viable basis on which to proceed. Bishop Jefferts Schori indicated that she deliberately left open and flexible the operation of the ministry of the Episcopal Visitors, believing that it was best for the visitor and the diocesan bishop concerned to work out an acceptable scheme.” “…(T)he House of Bishops is correct in identifying that the co-operation and participation of the wider Communion, in a way which respects the integrity of the American Province, is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight…. We also believe that a body which could facilitate such consultation and partnership would meet the intent of the Pastoral Council envisaged by the Primates in their Communiqué. We encourage all the Instruments of Communion to participate in a discussion with the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of The Episcopal Church….”

“On Interventions in the life of The Episcopal Church by Other Jurisdictions….

“…(T)he House of Bishops makes a point here which needs to be addressed urgently in the life of the Communion. …(T)he House is reminding all Anglicans that we are committed to upholding the principle of local jurisdiction. Not only do the ancient councils of the Church command our respect on this question, but the principle was clearly articulated and defended at the time when the very architecture of the Anglican Communion was forged in the early Lambeth Conferences, as well as being clearly re-iterated and stated in more recent times as tensions have escalated….

“As a Joint Standing Committee, we do not see how certain primates can in good conscience call upon The Episcopal Church to meet the recommendations of the Windsor Report while they find reasons to exempt themselves from paying regard to them.”

Citing both the planting of congregations in provinces other than their own, and the ordination of bishops as part of a ‘mission initiative’, the Joint Standing Committee goes on to say that “the time is right for a determined effort to bring interventions to an end.”

“The Life of Persons of Homosexual Orientation in the Church….

“Lambeth Conference Resolutions do not have ‘magisterial’ force in the Anglican Communion; that is, they are not per se binding on the faithful of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, Resolution 1.10 expresses the understanding on Christian marriage and sexual relationships actually taught and held by the vast majority of Anglican churches and bishops across the globe….

“In addition, the resolution also goes on to say ‘…We commit ourselves to listen to the experiences of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ; (and This Conference)…calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialization and commercialization of sex….” (The Joint Standing Committee then cites two statements from the Primates expressing that “we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people”, and an affirming and explanatory portion of the Windsor Report.)

The Report of the Joint Standing Committee concludes with this paragraph, which I include because of its importance as a guide to both the present and the future:

“The life of the Anglican Communion has been much damaged in recent years…. With the response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in September 2007, the Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being. The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them. Here, The Episcopal Church and the Instruments of Communion speak with one voice. The process of mutual listening and conversation needs to be intensified. It is only by living in communion that we can live out our vocation to be Communion.”

Beloved, the concluding sentence is worth repeating: “It is only by living in communion that we can live out our vocation to be Communion.” The critical nature of the unity of the Church is reflected in our Lord’s High Priestly Prayer the night before his crucifixion—in the writings of St. Paul—indeed, throughout Holy Scripture and echoed in the Baptismal Covenant: “Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship…?” Historically, “schism only begets schism”, and the Will of the Holy Spirit is discerned by study, prayer and dialogue—in communion (community) and fellowship—all, to be sure, with God’s grace. For accurate discernment, all voices should be at the table; we get nowhere by secession into groups of only like-minded persons. Remember the description of the Church as the Body of Christ, with Jesus Christ himself the head of the Body—and all parts indispensable. If we are not all present and all exercising our gifts, the Body is not functioning as effectively or as efficiently as the Spirit has designed it—in discernment as in mission.

As a diocese we are committed to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ—the Great Commandment and the Great Commission—and life in Christ as guided by the three authorities of the Church: Holy Scripture, Tradition and Reason. We are committed to the discernment of the Holy Will in all things, including every issue in every age. But, in order to be faithful, I am bold to remind you, we are mission-driven, not issue-driven. I pray that by God’s Grace we shall be diligent in discernment, and that by God’s Spirit we shall be powerful in mission—in proclaiming God’s gracious Good News to all of God’s children.

Of which, more anon. Subjects among those I would like to see discussed on “The Bishop’s Blog” and otherwise studied and explored earnestly: (1) What does it mean to be a bishop in this catholic church? (2) What are the implications of the affirmation that “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church?”—or, what does it mean to be part of something larger? (3) How do we honor the Anglican Communion’s commitment to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons (and to) assure them that they are loved by God and…full members of the Body of Christ” (Lambeth Resolution 1.10. Your suggestions?

Pastoral letter from Bishop Henderson

A Pastoral Letter

“For the Sake of the Gospel”

Bishop Henderson Comments on the Meeting and Statement of the House of Bishops

 

“I do all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings”—I Cor. 9:23

 

Beloved Sisters and Brothers in the Lord, I return exhausted but exhilarated after the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans (19-25 September). There, together, we worshipped God…engaged in Bible study…listened for the voice of the Holy Spirit…heard inspiring accounts of the life and mission of the Church (including one from “our own” Paul Farmer about the work in Cange)…labored physically at sites of Katrina destruction…and—yes—had a little fun, and a little too much food, too.

Regarding the Bishops’ Response

This was possibly the most congenial and unified meeting of the HOB in my experience—truly a blessing from God. That is not to say that we were all of one mind about the serious issues before us—but throughout our striving I perceive there was a unity of purpose, a unity in spirit. More than once I recalled the words of that hymn, “Surely the Spirit of the Lord is in this place”. Though disappointed that three or four bishops departed after the first two days—their voices, too, needed to be heard throughout the meeting—there was, nevertheless, a remarkable sense of urgency and a remarkable passion for the task which was ours. Bishops with sharp differences of opinion seemed determined, by God’s grace, to respond faithfully to the expectations within our own province and from other Anglican provinces. Commitment to maintain the unity of The Episcopal Church and full partnership within the Anglican Communion was patently obvious.

The Presiding Bishop set the tone by announcing the appointment of eight “Episcopal visitors”—bishops (including yours) to provide pastoral oversight for dioceses unable to accept her ministry. Unlike an earlier, rather elaborate proposal from her, this plan leaves the details of such oversight to be worked out between the “visitor” and the diocesan bishop. This spirit of openness and trust set the tone for much that followed.

Two days were spent listening to, and in conversation with, the Archbishop of Canterbury and representatives of the Anglican Consultative Counsel. That was followed by conversations among us bishops, some public, some in executive session. A “writing committee” was appointed to develop—based on those discussions—a response to the larger church to which the HOB could subscribe. We went through at least four or five drafts; however, the “meat” of the final document was the result of suggestions of bishops with very different viewpoints: +Charles Jenkins (of Louisiana—our preacher at the “Great Gathering”) and +John Chane (Washington, D.C.), with some involvement by +Jon Bruno (Los Angeles). Their work eventually became the “bullet” points in the final version. I feel that those bullet points respond to the Primates’ requests faithfully, explicitly, and consistent with our Constitution and Canons—thus honoring the twin Anglican principles of provincial autonomy and interdependence within the Communion.

The results can be seen within the contents of the document itself, which is entitled “House of Bishops response ‘to questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners’”. My own summary assessment of the document is that it is a sincere, heartfelt, gracious and adequate response at this stage of discernment. As before, I urge you to read the document and assess it yourselves, avoiding anxious voices and agenda-serving analyses, no matter their origin. (As example of the different “spin” which is possible, note these conflicting headlines: from “The New York Times”: “Episcopal Bishops Reject Anglican Church’s Orders”; from “USA Today”: “Episcopal bishops make concessions for the sake of unity”. Ironically, the contents of the two articles are almost identical—what a difference a headline writer can make!)

Consensus and Comprehension, Not Compromise

In the Collect of the Day for the Commemoration of the life and witness of Richard Hooker (Priest, d. 1600), we pray as follows: “O God…Grant that we may maintain that middle way, not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth….” The Bishops struggled mightily—and, by the grace of God, rather successfully in my mind—to frame our response as “comprehension for the sake of truth”—acknowledging that we differ among ourselves on some matters, but that we strive, in effect, to “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers”. I trust that you can see this in the “Summary” section of the Bishop’s response. Read that summary carefully, as well as the discussion of each point which follows.

That consensus and comprehension were achieved by the bishops could be seen in the vote on the final version of “Response”—only one “nay” vote was heard.

Mission

Christ’s mission continues to be the focus of the life of The Episcopal Church (as it does in our diocese). As usual, this part of the agenda is ignored by the popular, secular media. The Presiding Bishop—who, by the way, has accepted an invitation from Mark Lawrence+, the Bishop-elect of our neighbor, the Diocese of South Carolina, and its Standing Committee, to visit them—called us to “claim the mission that Jesus claimed”, and to “cooperate with the Holy Spirit” and to “make space for the Holy Spirit to work”. Thus, for example, we heard from Paul Farmer on the Millennium Development Goals; worked on various re-construction sites in New Orleans and Mississippi; heard from an appreciative local, secular leader about the work of the Episcopal dioceses in those two states, and received an update on combating the sin of racism.

[I, for one, have learned a new craft—dry-walling; luckily, there were experts on hand to teach this team of struggling bishops and spouses in what turned out to be a truly exhausting—but satisfying—day. We worked in a home destroyed down to the frame, owned by a teacher retired after 35 years in public schools, only to have her security stripped from around her. Then, on Sunday, I traveled with two other bishops to worship at Holy Trinity Parish (Pass Christian, Mississippi), whose church and parish hall were destroyed by the hurricane “Katrina”, and are now worshipping as guests of hospitable Methodists.]

The Bishop of Louisiana (+Charles Jenkins) and the Bishop of Mississippi (+Duncan Grey) are constant inspirations to us all. They live day and night with the devastation wrought by Katrina, coping with the needs of thousands of displaced persons (over 100,000 homes needing total or major reconstruction), congregations without church buildings, priests and their families without congregations—and therefore without income—exploitive contractors and ineffective governmental action at every level. After two years, conditions remain intolerable—even hospitals and schools remain closed. Please “pray without ceasing” for these bishops, other clergy and people of those two areas, which in a true sense bring home the MDGs and actual Third World conditions.

What Happens Next? The Windsor Process Continues

I think that as much as anything else, most of us strongly desire a swift resolution—an end—to the conflict in The Episcopal Church and in the Communion. That, Beloved, will not happen today any more quickly than substantive conflict has been resolved in the previous 2,000 years of the Church’s life. The Archbishop of Canterbury has appointed a committee which will study the House’s Response for the apparent purpose of evaluating it and what it means within the life of the Communion. Beyond that, the Anglican Consultative Counsel, the Primates of the Communion, and Lambeth Conference (to take place next summer) will continue the labor of discernment through their own prayer, study, and dialogue. The Windsor Report, after all, set out a process which cannot be both faithful and abrupt. Discussion and study of the idea of an Anglican covenant has hardly begun.

Beware, in the interim, those who would say that “this or that is (or is not) acceptable to the Primates”. Only the Primates can decide that, and this they doubtlessly will do, as a continuation of the conversation and discernment which is the Windsor Process.

We need to be reminded, too, that the Primates are only one of the four Instruments of Unity designated by the Windsor Committee—a cooperative structure in which no one “instrument” is supreme over the others. The concept of demands and deadlines is not conducive to the kind of careful discernment which, for example, took over 400 years in reaching consensus about a concept central to Christian faith—nothing less than the Trinity! Nor is the idea of demands and deadlines consistent with classical Anglicanism.

What happens next– for us? As I stated to Convention last spring: having been derailed temporarily, it is time to reclaim our mission. As a diocese, we focus on mission—spreading the joy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While we have every intention of dealing seriously with the issues before us, I am confident that I speak for the great majority of Episcopalians in Upper South Carolina when I affirm, again and again if necessary, that we are a mission-driven diocese—not an issue-driven diocese—a diocese committed to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission—a diocese committed to God, who is love.

We continue the journey of faith, trust and action with prayers for the Church, for the mission of the Church, and for the faithfulness of the Church.

By God’s grace and as a beneficiary of your prayers, I remain

Faithfully yours in our Lord,

Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr.

The Right Rev’d, the Bishop

“The Consitutional Crisis, 2007″

Beloved, a document is being circulated among the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, and by internet, to broader circles. The full title is “The Constitutional Crisis, 2007: A Statement to the House of Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Honored Visitors”. It has been circulated to be considered during the upcoming meeting of the House of Bishops, and it bears my name.

Although asked several months ago by Bishop Doss, the first lawyer-bishop to suggest the project, to participate in the writing of the document, I have not, in fact, contributed to its research, content or drafting. Consequently, I asked that my name be removed from the list of contributors, but the paper had already been sent to the printer for publication and distribution.

It is being said that I have “repudiated” the document. This, too, is inaccurate. Indeed, I asked for my name to be removed because, as stated above, I had not contributed to it and did not avail myself in a timely fashion to review and critique its contents—but also, as I indicated to Bishop Doss, because at best I would be “concurring in part and dissenting in part”. I think that there are parts of the thesis which the authors set out which are worth consideration—along with many others which have been developed as part of the process commended to us in The Windsor Report.

However, I also believe that the document, and the dialogue which it will provoke, must necessarily involve consideration of the following:

1. The specific inclusion of the provisions of The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (see pp. 876-877 of the BCP) as well as the Creeds of the Church, would bring, in my opinion, greater clarity to the concept and content of such a constitution.

2. Because the catechism reflects the historic and traditional understanding of the ministry of the various orders, I am convinced that bishops, who specifically—and unlike the other orders—have the responsibility “to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the whole Church” Accordingly, it would seem that Bishops, in those limited areas, have a responsibility which does not require the concurrence of the General Convention (as much as concurrence is to be desired). My view is inconsistent with the position taken in the paper.

3. A good dose of Richard Hooker would—again, in my humble opinion—enrich the content of “The Constitutional Crisis” and the dialogue about it.

4. I also fear that some of the “tone” of some the language utilized in the paper will tend to be a barrier to objective consideration of the overall concept.

I commend to your diligent prayers the bishops, The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as we convene in New Orleans beginning the evening of September 19.

Faithfully in our Lord, +Dorsey USC VII

The South Carolina election

Friday of 3rd Lent
March 16, 2007

Sisters and Brothers:

As the House of Bishops began gathering at Camp Allen, Texas, last night, the Presiding Bishop announced that although the Bishop-Elect of the Diocese of South Carolina had received consenting votes from more than a majority of dioceses by the deadline at midnight, last Monday, there were “canonical deficiencies” in the written responses (e.g. e-mail submissions rather than signed statements from Standing Committees). Accordingly, she declared the election null and void; the diocese will have to hold another election.

You may read the Episcopal News Service report here, and the statement of the President of South Carolina’s Standing Committee here.

One option open to the Diocese of South Carolina is to re-elect the Rev’d Mark Lawrence in anticipation of receiving, on the second go-around, the necessary number of consents by the deadline and in the proper canonical form.

Your Standing Committee and I both consented, in accord with the canons, and well before the deadline.

The official beginning of the House meeting begins after lunch today. In the interim, I am attending a workshop of the College for Bishops, dealing with the understanding and function of the provisions of Title IV of our canons, which establishes the disciplinary process for clergy charged with misconduct.

Throughout the meeting of the House of Bishops, I shall keep you informed as appropriate.

Faithfully, +Dorsey USC VII

Primates at Dar es Salaam: The Bishop’s Response—No. 2

Regarding the meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion which ended February 19, I commend to your reading, study and prayer the following three documents in their entirety which can be found as noted by the links below.  (Beware of brief media coverage, which in my experience hardly ever—if ever—portrays an accurate, balanced accounting.) 

1.    “The Communiqué Of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam 19^th February 2007”.

2.    “The Key Recommendations of the Primates” (at the end of the Communiqué, linked above).

3.    “An Anglican Covenant:  Draft prepared by the Covenant Design Group, January 2007”.[1] 

You will see in these documents that the Primates considered many areas of Christian mission:  ways to improve theological education across the entire Communion; methods of achieving the Millennium Development Goals; and the decision to pursue an international study of approaches to scriptural interpretation.  However—to be sure—much attention was on The Episcopal Church (hereinafter sometimes referred to by the abbreviation “TEC”), within the context of the Windsor Report. 

The Primates affirmed and challenged The Episcopal Church, and expressed confidence in the future of the communion, as expressed in these excerpts: 

1.    “We believe several factors must be faced together.  First, The Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we express our gratitude for the consideration by the 75^th General Convention”.[2] 

2.    “However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorization of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions”.  Noting “an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision”, the Primates add, “We recognize that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorization of them.  However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings”, which, the Primates wrote, “causes concern among us”.[3] 

3.    “We believe that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the Anglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to re-establish our interdependent life.  By making explicit what Anglicans mean by the ‘bonds of affection’ and securing the commitment of each Province to those bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and enhanced.”[4]

The work of the Primates produced in me mixed feelings—both a sense of relief and significant concerns.  The sigh of relief, because:  First, there was no “excommunication”.  The Primates “request” that our House of Bishops covenant that we “will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions”; also that the HOB “confirm that the passing of Resolution B033…means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters across the Communion (emphasis in the original)”. [5] Otherwise, “the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion…remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”[6]; “consequences” are not further defined. Second, the Primates acknowledged that “(t)he interventions (into TEC) by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated (recrimination, hostility and…disputes in the civil courts)”.[7]   They made the commitment to “end all interventions”[8]. Third, in relation to the Presiding Bishop, they:  1.    “…(R)ecognize that (she) has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected”;[9] 2.    “…(A)cknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar” (which she had done in December);[10] 

3. Elected her to represent the Anglican Churches in North, Central, and South America on the Primates’ Standing Committee.  (Each region elects its own representatives to the Standing Committee, which operates as the governing board of the Primates.)[11] 

Fourth, they took no action which could be interpreted as recognizing an “alternative” Anglican presence in the United States. 

My frustration is a result of the following matters: 

 1.    While the Anglican Communion and TEC are called to be a confessing Church, we have never been a confessional Church.  What’s the difference?  A confessing church is one that proclaims “with our lips and in our lives” that Jesus Christ is Lord, and struggles with the mystery of what that means in life and mission.  Consequently, as Professor Reginald Fuller expresses in his commentary on Romans 10, she sees that “the unity of the Church despite the pluralism of its members…; the unity of the New Testament, despite the variety of its expressions of the Christian message; the unity of the liturgy, despite the existence of different Eucharistic Prayers” lie in this common, basic confession:  God has raised Jesus from the dead and made him Lord.”.  A confessional church has developed an extensive and detailed set of dogma which one must believe if one is to be saved.  My concern:  that our desire to strengthen the “bonds of affection” may result in a covenant which transforms Anglicanism from a confessing church into a confessional church. [12]

2.    The Primates of the Communion, for the first time ever, are making demands on one of the constituent Churches, an action inconsistent with previous practice:  i.e., that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the sole person/office through whom inclusion in the Anglican Communion is established and maintained.  The Primates are also acting independently, without regard to two of the other three “instruments of unity”:  the Lambeth Conference, which involves all bishops of the worldwide Communion; and the Anglican Consultative Council, which is the only instrument whose membership includes lay people as well as ordained persons.[13]  How does this impact our understanding of the Communion as composed of interdependent but autonomous Churches?  The Primates seem to continue to confuse the polity of TEC with theirs.  Our Presiding Bishop is just that—he/she presides over the House of Bishops but has no authority to dictate decisions by bishops or dioceses.  Some Primates have for all intents and purposes dictatorial power, choosing and dismissing bishops and priests at will, and establishing single-handedly what is—and what is not—“the faith once delivered to the apostles”. 

3.    The Primates request a response from the House of Bishops and set a deadline.  This raises important, legitimate—and perhaps mutually exclusive—questions about our polity which we Episcopalians must resolve in providing that response:  (1)  Is the General Convention the only body which can respond on behalf of The Episcopal Church; or, (2)  does the assignment to the episcopacy—and not to lay people, deacons and priests—of responsibility for the “faith, unity and discipline of the whole Church”, vest in the Bishops the authority to respond to requests such as these without—or at least pending—a decision by General Convention.[14]  (Or, for example, can the Executive Council of TEC speak for the Convention?)  At issue in this as with other provisions of these documents:  what does it mean for us to be part of something larger—to believe in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”?  Anglicanism has never meant conformity in all things—rather it anticipates equal partners united in One Lord with one mission—in the words of Archbishop Williams, “as an organically international and intercultural unity whose aim is to glorify Jesus Christ and to work for his Kingdom….”[15] 

4.    In my view we have failed the homosexual community.  I can find no better words to describe what I mean that those uttered by Archbishop Williams:  “…(M)indful of the full text of Lambeth I.10, we should have done more about offering safe space to homosexual people…to talk about what it is like to be endlessly discussed and dissected in their absence, patronized or demonized.  Again and again we have used the language of respect for their human dignity; again and again we have failed to show it effectively, convertingly and convertedly. …(E)very attempt to ‘listen to the experience of homosexual people’ is easily seen as…an exercise in winning battles rather than winning understanding.”[16] 

 What next?  The House of Bishops meets at Camp Allen in Texas March 16-20.  I approach our prayerful deliberations, maintaining my commitment to be a Windsor Bishop of a Windsor Diocese, committed to faithfulness within TEC and the Communion.  I do so, concurring with a majority of the Primates who “were not eager to see this as a life and death issue for the Communion”; and I do so in agreement with the Archbishop of Canterbury that “it is folly to think that a decision to ‘go our separate ways’…would leave us with a neat and morally satisfying break between two groups of provinces, orthodox and heretics or humane liberals and bigots (depending on where you stand).”[17]  I bid your prayers for me and for my fellow bishops, for The Episcopal Church and for the Anglican Communion:  for the unity of the Church—for the mission of the Church—and for the faithfulness of the Church. 

With prayers for a holy Lent and God’s blessings upon all, 

Upper South Carolina VII 

“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”   

–St. Paul, to the Christians in Ephesus (Eph. 4:1-3). 

---

Notes 

1. Note bene:  This is a preliminary draft and could be changed—and probably will be—as the process of development and adoption unfolds.

2. Paragraph 21, “The Communiqué”.

3. Id., paragraph 22.

4.  Id., paragraph 29

5. “The Key Recommendations of the Primates”, under the heading, “On Clarifying the Response to Windsor”.  The HOB is asked to provide this clarification “by 30 September 2007”.

6. Ibid.

7. “The Communiqué”, op. cit., paragraphs 26 and 25.

8. “The Key Recommendations…”, op. cit., under the heading, “A Pastoral Scheme”.

9. “The Communiqué”, op., cit., paragraph 27.

10. “The Key Recommendations…”, op. cit., under the heading, “A Pastoral Scheme”.   

11. For the complete story, see www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82568-eng_HTM.htm. 

12. Fuller, Reginald, Preaching the Lectionary, pp. 405-406.  Professor Dr. Fuller is one of the foremost experts on the New Testament within the Anglican Communion. 

13. “The Windsor Report”, sections 97-104; also recommendations regarding the instruments of unity, sections 105 ff. 

14.See the “The Ministry” portion of “The Catechism”, BCP, p. 855-856; the Ordinal for bishops, p. 517 and 518; cf.  Ordinal for priests and deacons, pp. 526 ff., and 538 ff., respectively.

15. From the Archbishop’s Presidential Address at the General Synod of the Church of England on 26 February, occurring after the Primates’ meeting earlier in the month.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.  

 

On the Primates’ Meeting, No. 1

About the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam
No. 1; February 23, 2007

“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

                                                —St. Paul, to the Christians in Ephesus (Eph. 4:1-3).

 Beloved, since they have been published earlier this week, I have been studying the following three documents, which I commend to you in their entirety.  You may find the full texts on-line as noted at the end of this document.

1.      The Communiqué Of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam, 19^th February 2007;

2.      The Key Recommendations of the Primates; and,

3.      “An Anglican Covenant:  Draft prepared by the Covenant Design Group”, January, 2007.

There is much in these documents to absorb and prayerfully consider; I’m still coping with it myself.  Let me emphasize, first, that the Primates both affirmed and challenged The Episcopal Church.  About this I will be writing to you soon and more extensively.  But I hasten to express to you my concern that some, from different, even opposite quarters of the Church, have already rushed to judgment.  It is my prayer and hope that in Upper South Carolina we will not leap to conclusions but, rather, commit ourselves to appropriate consideration, reflection, dialogue, and—again—all of it immersed in prayer.

That is not to say that the concerns already expressed through the media and the internet are without merit.  There certainly are legitimate issues about what it means to be the Anglican Communion; what is meant by “bonds of affection”; about authority, autonomy, and interdependence in Anglican polity; about care, justice and peace for all of God’s people.

But let’s step back from whatever precipice tempts us to schism and precipitous judgment, reaffirming our commitment to remain faithful “in the apostle’s teaching and fellowship” within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion—“with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”.

More anon.

Faithfully in our Lord Jesus Christ,
+Dorsey
USC VII 

---

texts

The Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam, 19th February 2007, is available here. The “Key Recommendations of the Primates” appears at the end of the document.

The text of a proposed Anglican Covenant is available here.

Resolution of Upper SC’s Executive Council and Standing Committee

At a meeting on January 13, the Diocesan Executive Council of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, in its role as council to the Bishop as well as in its role as Standing Committee of the Diocese, passed a resolution in support of the November 26, 2006, proposal for Alternative Primatial Oversight produced by a group of bishops of the Episcopal Church who met at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The resolution follows.

______________________________________________________

Whereas, a group of bishops of the Episcopal Church have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide their dioceses “Alternative Primatial Oversight” in their letter entitled “An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury”; and,Whereas, at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a group of bishops of the Episcopal Church has met with the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, and, on November 27, 2006, made a response to that request; and, Whereas, the Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated interest in knowing the minds of Bishops of The Episcopal Church concerning the response of this group of Bishops; and,Whereas, the Right Rev’d Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, has proclaimed his commitment to be a “Windsor bishop of a
Windsor diocese”; Therefore, be it resolved that we, the Diocesan Executive Council of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, as Executive Council as well as Standing Committee of the Diocese, join our bishop and  communicate to the Archbishop of Canterbury our support of the response proposed in November, 2006, by the aforementioned group of bishops, as a reasonable, adequate and gracious set of proposals that addresses the requests for “alternative Primatial oversight” in a way that moves the discussion in a positive direction; and,Be it further resolved that this resolution be communicated to the Presiding Bishop, members of the House of Bishops, the President of the House of Deputies, Episcopal News Service, Anglican Communion News Service, Episcopal Life, and The Living Church.

From Bishop Henderson re: alternative primatial oversight

Beloved, what follows is the product of prayer and labor in which I was involved in New York City on November 27, together with the other persons named.  There are two documents:  one is the response to requests for alternative primatial oversight, prepared by the group assembled at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The second is  a statement released to the communications officers of the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church—more-or-less a description of the meeting, its purpose, the names of the participants (and those who, although invited, did not attend), and a general description of the response.

The response has already been rejected by the Bishop of Ft. Worth and the Bishop of Pittsburgh, two of the requesting bishops.  However, I would commend it to you as being a gracious and more-than-adequate provision designed to meet their needs  As you will see, the response gives those bishops and their dioceses a voice in choosing the alternative primate while maintaining the order and polity of The Episcopal Church; involves the Archbishop of Canterbury; maintains appropriate space and opportunity for conversation involving the requesting bishops/dioceses and the Presiding Bishop; draws attention to care for those congregations who disagree with their bishops—of whatever persuasion and conviction—and gives the requesting bishops a representative on the Advisory Panel.  In all ways I see it as a response to legitimate needs which builds bridges rather than burns them.

I commend it for your own prayer, study, and determination.

I. A Response to “An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury”

Some bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have requested that the Archbishop of Canterbury provide what they have variously called “alternative primatial oversight” or an “alternative primatial relationship.” In consultation with the Presiding Bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that a number of bishops from the Episcopal Church meet to explore a way forward. A first meeting took place in September, and a second meeting in November developed the following proposal that seeks to address the concerns of those parishes and dioceses which for serious theological reasons feel a need for space, and to encourage them to remain within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

1. Taking seriously the concerns of the petitioning bishops and dioceses, the Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, will appoint a Primatial Vicar in episcopal orders to serve as the Presiding Bishop’s designated pastor in such dioceses. The Primatial Vicar could preside at consecrations of bishops in these dioceses. The Primatial Vicar could also serve the dioceses involved on any other appropriate matters either at the initiative of the Presiding Bishop or at the request of the petitioning dioceses.

2. The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop’s designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee).

3. This arrangement for a Primatial Vicar does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate, when appropriate, some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

4. Individual congregations who dissent from the decisions of their diocesan leadership are reminded of the availability of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight and its process of appeal.

5. This arrangement is provisional in nature, in effect for three years, beginning January 1, 2007. During that time, the Presiding Bishop is asked to monitor its efficacy and to consult with the House of Bishops and the Executive Council regarding this arrangement and possible future developments.

---

II. StatementA group of bishops, including the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, gathered at the initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has developed a proposal for the appointment of a Primatial Vicar in response to those bishops and dioceses that have requested what they termed “alternative primatial oversight” or an “alternative primatial relationship.”

Those present at the September meeting, in addition to Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori, included Bishops Peter James Lee of Virginia, and Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, as co-conveners, and Bishops James Stanton of Dallas, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Jack Iker of Fort Worth, Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina, Robert O’Neill of Colorado, and Mark Sisk of New York. Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas was invited but did not attend. The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion was also present at the September meeting.

The same bishops and Canon Kearon were invited to the November meeting with the exception of Bishop Griswold who had completed his tenure as Presiding Bishop. Bishop Don Johnson of West Tennessee joined the group in November. Bishops Salmon, Stanton, Iker, Duncan and Wimberly did not attend the November meeting. Bishop Lipscomb, who had been involved in the planning of the meeting, was unexpectedly hospitalized at the time of the November meeting, sent his sincere regrets, and was briefed on the meeting at its conclusion.

The proposal provides for the appointment by the Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury of a Primatial Vicar as the Presiding Bishop’s designated pastor to bishops and dioceses that have requested such oversight. The Primatial Vicar, in episcopal orders, could preside at consecrations of bishops in those dioceses. The Primatial Vicar, accountable to the Presiding Bishop, would report to an advisory panel that would include the designees of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies, and a bishop of the Episcopal Church selected by the dioceses petitioning for pastoral care by the Primatial Vicar.

The response makes clear that the arrangement does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate some of those duties to the Primatial Vicar. The response also specifies that the Primatial Vicar and the Advisory Panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

The response drafted at the New York November 27th meeting is provisional in nature, beginning January 1, 2007 and continuing for three years. The New York group asked the Presiding Bishop to monitor its efficacy, and to consult with the House of Bishops and the Executive Council regarding the arrangement and possible future developments.

The response has been submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the bishops of the petitioning dioceses.

Bishop Lee of Virginia, co-convenor of the meetings that drafted the response said: “The group was conscious of the need to respond quickly to the needs of parishes and dioceses which felt themselves to be under pressure and sought a proposal which could be put into place without delay. Accordingly, this is a provisional measure that is entirely within the discretion of the Presiding Bishop and requires no canonical change nor any action by the General Convention. It is intended to provide some space for dioceses and congregations that feel they need it while the Anglican Communion sorts out more lasting measures to deal with differences. Those of us who drafted it hope it will be received and used in good faith.” 
 

From the Bishop (August 3, 2006)

Here is a letter written in late May by Canon Gregory Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, to the London Telegraph. It’s been circulating on a number of blogs, and is of interest because of Canon Cameron’s comments on an Anglican covenant and a so-called “two-tier” approach.

Sir - Your report (”Archbishop backs two-track Church to heal divisions”, May 19) appears to suggest that there is a planned strategy to divide the Anglican Communion in this.way to achieve this end. That is not the case.

A paper exploring how a covenant might be drawn up for the provinces of the Anglican Communion has been adopted for discussion and reflection in the Communion by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council.

The potential for a covenant arrangement to entail a difference between those who might wish to sign and those who might not is recognised as a complication, and consideration of this challenge will have to form part of that exploration.

That is a long way indeed from saying that the Communion is preparing for a two-tier approach and further still from saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs it.

Canon Gregory Cameron, Deputy Secretary General
The Anglican Communion, London W11