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?

Bishop’s Convention Address May 19, 2007

Alleluia!  Christ is risen!

Welcome to this part of the family reunion of the delegates who represent the sisters and brothers who constitute the family of God in Upper South Carolina.  With this session we look at the “nuts and bolts” of Christian leadership—how we conduct a “revival”, so to speak—an on-going revival of focus and energy for mission.

 

Several weeks ago I made a visitation to St. David’s Parish in Columbia, where I enjoyed a delicious breakfast and an open forum with the communicants.  After I made some reference to my experience of 12 years as bishop, a kind gentleman asked me what goals I had 12 years ago, and which of them had been accomplished.  That was easy, and I rattled them off without hesitation.

 

Then he asked me another question:  “What are your goals now?”  That one surprised me—and, I confess, gave me pause.  Then I stammered, I’m sure, and responded with a few, probably pious, generalizations.  Mostly, I was surprised that I was surprised.  The question got my attention.

 

And it has generated serious reflection on my part.  After all, the clock is ticking, the calendar running.  Canon law requires that I resign effective no later than my 72^nd birthday.  Now, I assume that you won’t tar and feather me and run me out of the diocese on a rail before then.  Unless you do, you may have to drag me, kicking and screaming, off of the Cathedra.

My reluctance to “turn loose” notwithstanding, God has a vision for us—and whether we are in transition or not—and in a sense we are always in transition—the mission and love of Christ compels us.  You know the mission of the Church:  to spread the Kingdom of God on earth.  Or, in the words of the catechism, “The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.”

We have brought that mission home, so to speak, by the development of our vision action plan:  “One Body, One Mission:  Changing Lives.” That plan was devised by setting concrete goals consistent with the vitality of the Church in the first century after Christ. Love for each other—“See those Christians, how they love one another”—and a passion for mission to the unchurched; a nurturing Christian community and sharing the Gospel of Christ—those were the factors that set fire to the Early Church.  Our action plan needs to be updated and reformed—regularly and constantly—to meet changes resulting from the passage of time, progress already accomplished, and changes in the needs of God’s people here and in the world around us.  But a plan we need, and a specific one.  In the Book of Proverbs we find that “Without a vision, the people perish.”

 

We have also sought to grow spiritually.  Early in my episcopate, Christian formation teachers from congregations around our diocese gathered time after time to help us focus on the spiritual journey called life, and to promote deeper understanding and practice of the Christian faith among all of us.  Our goal, we said as the family of God in Upper South Carolina, is to grow more and more into the image of God in which we were created, and after the example of Christ.  That goal prompted the drafting of our spiritual vision statement:  that “We strive to love with the heart of Christ, to think with the mind of Christ, and to act in the world as the Body of Christ”.

 

We celebrated our definitive sense of mission with the Great Gathering.  What a time—commitment and energy spilling out all over the place.  “Our cup runneth over.”  We were off to a great start, committed to the Lord and to the Lord’s mission, committed to living into the Great Commission as fully as God’s grace empowers us.

 

But we were derailed, or, to use another metaphor, the wind was taken out of our sails when other issues grabbed headlines and sapped energy.

 

Beloved, it is time to reclaim our mission—and to get down to the nuts and bolts of mission.

 

And thanks to the communicant at St. David’s and his provocative question, I have spent considerable time seeking to discern how we do that at this time in our life as the people of God in
Upper South Carolina.  My thoughts are based on consideration of where we need to be when the next diocesan bishop of Upper South Carolina is seated in the Cathedra.

 

First, the Healthy Church Initiative.  Before I slip away into the night, I want every congregation to have a vision action plan which indicates specifically the ministry to which they believe God is calling them, and also the means and resources, financial and otherwise, sufficient to accomplish that ministry.  In the Healthy Church Initiative we have the blueprint and the process for discerning vision and developing resources—the establishment of mission goals, and a strategy for accomplishing them by effective Christian stewardship of the gifts God has given us.

 

The population of our state is exploding.  Faithfulness to our Lord’s Great Commission requires that we need to develop a mission strategy to take advantage of this significant opportunity—a challenge and a blessing dropped in our laps.  So my second specific goal is to have in place a plan for planting new missions, and a strategy for assisting congregations already in place.  Let me state parenthetically that further enrichment of our ministry with our Spanish-speaking brothers and sisters is an indispensable part of our mission strategy, not just for the future, but for here and now.

 

Beloved, we cannot be content with the level of Christian education and formation we received in grammar school.  So, third, let’s greet the next bishop with programs—wherever we have an altar, wherever we have a congregation—for growing in our understanding and practice of the Christian faith—a plan for education and formation “from the womb to the tomb”.  “To think with the mind of Christ” requires knowledge—constantly growing knowledge and a comfortable familiarity—with Holy Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and Reason—all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

Finally, we cannot ignore the great opportunity that we have—unique to our day and time—to be doing the work that Christ would have us do—to be faithful to his self-proclaimed mission to “bring good news to the poor…to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, (and to) proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”.  That blessed opportunity comes to us as the Millennium Development Goals.  Episcopalians in USC are off to a great start in numerous, exciting ventures in mission associated with the MDGs.  This is not so much a goal in itself as it is a way to measure how effective we have been with the three challenges I have set before you:  the Healthy Church Initiative, mission strategy, and Christian formation.  Our involvement in reaching the MDG’s is a thermometer for gauging spiritual health and mission accomplishment—and, along with evangelism, a demonstration of our commitment “to act in the world as the Body of Christ”.

 

Enough said.  Let’s get on with our praise of God Almighty and our commitment “to do the work God has given us to do”—with the nuts and bolts of Christian community and spread of the Good News.

Bishop’s blog #3

The Widow’s Mite and the Millennium Development Goals 

Beloved, this is in reference to the Gospel for last Sunday—the one which included our Lord’s use of the widow’s offering as an illustration of what he had just taught the disciples about scribes who “devour widows’ houses”.  In the “Synthesis” commentary I found, “Here Jesus reproaches (the scribes) for their excessive behavior at the expense of compassion and justice” because they used their position in the temple to exploit those less educated than they.  The commentary also informed that “(t)he noise made as coins were thrown into the large metal receptacles would call attention to the amount being donated, as in the attention-seeking behavior of the scribes.  ‘Many rich people put in large sums’ (v.41).”  The two copper coins dropped by the widow would have made little noise in comparison. 

That began eating away at me even as I preached the sermon.  We know that through accomplishment of the millennium goals poverty can be eliminated, adequate health care can be provided, educational levels can be raised substantially—and this around God’s globe”!  I take pride in tithing and more—but my conscience pressed me to ask myself, “Is my giving, like the scribes, ‘at the expense of compassion and justice’?”  Am I giving because it’s required—and am I forming my personal budget—and are we forming the Church’s Statement of mission ‘at the expense of compassion and justice’?” 

The Diocese of Upper South Carolina, acting in convention, has requested that we as a diocese—we as separate congregations—and we as individuals commit 0.7% beyond our present giving to projects “of compassion and justice”—the Millennium Development Goals.  The Diocesan Commission on Anglican and International Concerns, which I chair, is compiling a list of such projects, and it will be made available throughout the diocese as soon as it is completed.  The list will include our ministry in Cange and others familiar to you, as well as some new suggestions which will challenge your imagination and your heart. 

“When he came to
Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom.  He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him.  He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:  ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’  …Then he began to say to them, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.’”  (Luke 4:16-21) 

0.7%?  Sounds like no more than a widow’s mite to me…. 

The Bishop’s Invitational Blog–No. 2 (What do you think . . .?)

The Feast of St. Matthew and / or Impaired or Broken Communion 

I’m reading the commentaries on the Feast of Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (September 21).   I recommend reading Matthew 9:9-13 before proceeding with what follows.  The reading concludes with our Lord making reference to a verse in Hebrew scripture:  “Go and learn what this means”, he said, “’I desire mercy, not sacrifice’.  For I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners.” 

Recall that Matthew’s profession was that of a tax collector, a despised and rejected group among pious, faithful Jews.  We Christians tend to criticize their legalism, but the Pharisees were not evil people.  Their objective was to inspire every Israelite to live ritually pure at all times—thus the Kingdom of God would be at hand, and the entire earth a place of worship—a remarkable vision! Richard Pervo, in Proclamation 3:  Lesser Festivals 3, writes:  “Jesus had a different approach.  Rather than whip everyone into shape and then invite them to celebrate their reformation, he invited sinners to dine with him and receive God’s gracious gift.  This would free them for the possibility of change….  Like the parables, the practice of eating and drinking with sinners manifested the presence of the eschatological event we call grace and he called the Kingdom of God….  The call of Matthew reads like a dream come true, an immediate and insuperable invitation that sweeps away the past loneliness of sin and ushers in a new life of friends and celebration….  The good news is that even tax collectors, scribes, and people like you and me can join together at Christ’s table and celebrate.” 

Suppositions:  (1) We are all sinners.     (2) Jesus came to save sinners.     (3) Jesus dined with sinners.     (4) When we dine with/on Jesus, we are in communion with him and he with us.     (5) When we dine with/on Jesus, we receive grace which strengthens us for more faithful Christian living and continues our transformation. 

Question:  In light of this biblical teaching, what are the implications in declaring ourselves, or being declared, in “impaired communion”, or “not in communion” with others?

The Bishop’s Invitational Blog–No. 1 (What do you think . . .?)

In the Gospel according to St. Luke, Jesus, immediately following his baptism and temptation, describes his life’s mission.  This is how his initial, public “statement of vocation” is recorded: 

“(In the synagogue Jesus) opened the scroll and found the passage which says, ‘The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me; he has sent me to announce good news to the poor, to proclaim release for prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind; to let the broken victims go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’  …’Today’, he said, ‘in your very hearing this text has come true.’” (Luke 4:17-21) In an initial interview following her election as Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Shori was asked, “What will be your focus as head of the U.S. Church?”  She responded, “Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development.  That ought to be the primary focus.”  Later in the same interview, she identified her favorite Bible verse:  “Chapter 61 of Isaiah is an icon for me of what Christian work should be about.  That’s what Jesus reads in his first public act.  (The verse) talks about a vision of the reign of God where those who are mourning are comforted where the hungry are fed, where the poor hear good news.” 

I am surprised that there is criticism about Ms. Jefferts Shori’s response.  Recently I had a conversation with a Bible teacher in our diocese who was incensed that, in his opinion, she did not express the correct “priority”. What do you think?  Is her statement of call consistent with the Lord’s, or not?