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.” 
 

The Bishop or the Grinch? (an Advent blog)

Come December 25^th—Is Christmas Over?

Suggestions for a Fuller Celebration

-or-

Is Bishop Henderson the Grinch?

Christmas is celebrated quite differently in some branches of the Church.  In the sect in which I was raised, the tree was decorated shortly after Thanksgiving and removed no later than New Year’s Day, lest bad luck ensue.  We also started singing Christmas carols around Thanksgiving (if not earlier), but never after December 25^th—after all, Christmas was over! 

In Anglicanism and other branches of catholic Christianity, the four weeks prior to Christmas Day constitute the season we call Advent—a season not for celebration, but for spiritual preparation in order that celebration of our Lord’s birth may be richer and more meaningful.  During this time, Anglicans do not (ordinarily) have Christmas parties, wish each other “Merry Christmas” or sing Christmas carols and songs.  But that practice can leave us—and especially our children—feeling left out of things in a culture that begins its celebration early and shuts the party down abruptly.

Alas and alack, our tradition takes care of that!  After honoring the semi-solemnity of Advent, we celebrate all Twelve Days of Christmas, beginning with the Feast of the Incarnation (December 25) and concluding not until January 5^th—the Eve of the Feast of the Epiphany.  Celebrating these twelve days not only honors the Incarnation more fully than a one-day observation, but can embed within us a more conscious and enduring sense of God’s love given to us through Jesus.  Your own imaginations will be more fruitful than mine, but here are a few suggestions:

1.      Set up the tree whenever you wish, but do not decorate until Christmas Eve.  (This is good witness to our friends, but also can build up the appropriate sense of Advent expectation among the youngsters.)  (Or—like the Jesse tree in the Chapel at Trinity Cathedral—have the youngsters make decorations based on Old Testament symbols, and add one each day that the tree is up prior to Christmas.)

2.      Hold back some gifts for the children, spreading them out over the Twelve Days.

3.      Deliver gifts to others during the Twelve Days.

4.      Decide upon a simple act of charity for the family to work on during the Twelve Days, or several acts of charity to be accomplished on pre-designated days, and ensure that everyone’s aware that these acts are Christmas-related.

5.      Hold your Christmas parties during the Twelve Days—the Feast of the Holy Name (New Year’s Day), which is the 8^th Day of Christmas—is both timely and convenient!

6.      Attend worship—or worship as a family at home—more frequently during the Twelve Days.  At least two of the feast days of the period continue the Christmas story:  December 28 (The Holy Innocents), January 1 (Holy Name); others include the feast day of the first Christian martyr (Stephen, on December 26, and St. John Evangelist, December 28^th.

7.      Organize and/or attend a Christmas/Epiphany pageant or a Carol sing.

8.      Or incorporate a favorite personal or family activity in a way that emphasizes the importance of the birth of the Savior.

…and may all Twelve Days be blessings for you (please note that I am not prematurely wishing you a M—y C——-s!).

                                                                                    +dfh

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? 

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