From the Bishop (July 25, 2006)

This excerpt from Henri Nouwen’s “The Return of the Prodigal Son” was forwarded to me recently by a long-time friend. I find it very helpful, especially in the atmosphere in which the Church presently lives.

The excerpt was originally published on “inward/outward,” a blog sponsored by Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.

Cynicism or Joy

By Henri J. M. Nouwen

For me it is amazing to experience daily the radical difference between cynicism and joy. Cynics seek darkness wherever they go. They point always to approaching dangers, impure motives, and hidden schemes. They call trust naive, care romantic, and forgiveness sentimental. They sneer at enthusiasm, ridicule spiritual fervor, and despise charismatic behavior. They consider themselves realists who see reality for what it truly is and who are not deceived by “escapist emotions.” But in belittling God’s joy, their darkness only calls forth more darkness.

People who have come to know the joy of God do not deny the darkness, but they choose not to live in it. They claim that the light that shines in the darkness can be trusted more than the darkness itself and that a little bit of light can dispel a lot of darkness. They point each other to flashes of light here and there, and remind each other that they reveal the hidden but real presence of God. They discover that there are people who heal each other’s wounds, forgive each other’s offenses, share their possessions, foster the spirit of community, celebrate the gifts they have received, and live in constant anticipation of the full manifestation of God’s glory.

Every moment of each day I have the chance to choose between cynicism and joy. Every thought I have can be cynical or joyful. Every word I speak can be cynical or joyful. Every action can be cynical or joyful. Increasingly I am aware of all these possible choices, and increasingly I discover that every choice for joy in turn reveals more joy and offers more reason to make life a true celebration.

Source: Return of the Prodigal Son

The Bishop Speaks #3 (July 13, 2006)

A Pastoral Letter to the Episcopalians of Upper South Carolina

Concerning General Convention 2006

John 13:5—A Good Place to Stand

Click here for a printable version of this letter. (PDF)

“Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash his disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel.”

I’ve been asked where we stand as a diocese. Kneeling to wash one another’s feet is a blessed place for us to stand. Physically and literally that is impossible, to be sure; but spiritually and figuratively it is the appropriate posture for anyone seeking to “Love with the Heart of Christ; Think with the Mind of Christ; and Act in the World as the Body of Christ”—our diocesan spiritual vision statement.

Beloved, stress is not new in my life, but General Convention 2006 has to top my list—as it did for many. But the experience preceding the Convention and the Convention’s proceedings themselves fill me with renewed hope for the Episcopal Church—and yes, pride in the Church which has meant so much—life itself!—to so many of us. To be sure, this is a time of tension. But I proclaim with conviction: this is a time of Christian hope for us all! “Our hope”, we affirm, “is in the Lord”. “And we shall never hope in vain”.

Some hastily dismiss reports of our actions in Columbus, Ohio—the site of the General Convention—as “spin”. It does seem that persons of different persuasions can see in those actions what they—and we—want to see. Thus I invite you to look beyond headlines and public statements from whatever source—including your bishop—and determine for yourselves the relevant facts. To assist with that I have prepared and published two previous statements under the heading, “The Bishop Speaks”. One is “On the Election of the 26th Presiding Bishop”; the other, “On the Response of General Convention to Windsor Report”. The first does express my own thoughts about the choice of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. The latter I hope will be helpful, particularly because of its format, as you seek to make an objective consideration: it is a two-column, side-by-side comparison of the specific recommendations for the Episcopal Church and the actual language of the resolutions adopted in Columbus. Some observers have said the Convention did “too much”—others, “too little”. Read and draw your own conclusions. (Both writings are available on our web-site.

How can I be hopeful? For nine months my life was largely driven in preparation for, and the experience of, this convention. At the request of the Presiding Bishop, I served, beginning last September, on the Special Commission for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. At Convention I served as Chair of the House of Bishops Special Legislative Committee of the same name—and, thus, as co-chair of the joint (or “cognate”) Bishops’ and Deputies’ Committee. Both the Commission and the Committee were charged with the responsibility of assisting the Convention in preparing a response to the Windsor Report. It was a heavy responsibility, but living into it and through it—despite the physical and emotional exhaustion it entailed—was an incomparable blessing. In meetings of Commission, Committee and Convention, I witnessed Christians of diverse convictions, ethnicity, sexuality and experiences brought to a common mind through a shared commitment to Christ and to Christ’s mission. We intentionally and with great care immersed the process in prayer. The report and resolutions we eventually produced were “expensive” in the sense that they were costly, indeed painful, to everyone—and an answer to prayer. And the goal for which we all strove—unity, mission, and faithfulness—was also motivation for looking beyond individual cost and pain to the welfare of the Episcopal Church and for the larger Church of which we are a part—an indispensable part. This fills me with hope.

How can I be hopeful? “Brought to a common mind”, I observe above, but, borrowing from Blessed Richard Hooker, we—at least substantial majorities—were brought to that common mind by seeking to maintain the “middle way not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth”. That is both my conviction and my prayer about the decisions we made, knowing through faith that what God cannot bless, God redeems. That goes for Commission, Committee, Convention, Communion—and, Beloved, for you and for me. This fills me with hope—sure and certain hope.

I shall comment about actions of the Convention in more of the series, “The Bishop Speaks”. Presently my purpose is to address the status of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina—where we stand:

• We are a diocese of The Episcopal Church and as such a constituent part of the Anglican Communion. This is consistent with our Anglican ecclesiology, Anglican polity, and the constitution and canons of our Episcopal Church and our diocese.
• We are a “Windsor Diocese” with a “Windsor Bishop”.
• As a Windsor Diocese with a Windsor Bishop, we honor the Windsor Report in its entirety—not just our favorite parts. I maintain my previous pledge to honor the recommendations of the Windsor Report; this is consistent with the resolution adopted at our last diocesan convention which provided, in part, that our diocese, “receives, accepts, and endorses, the Windsor Report, and pledges to comply with its proposals and expectations….”
• As a Windsor Diocese with a Windsor Bishop, we honor Lambeth Resolution 110 in its entirety—not just our favorite parts. This means that while we accept the stated position on sexuality, we maintain the commitments of Lambeth to gay and lesbian people.
• As a Windsor Diocese with a Windsor Bishop, we continue to “seek and serve Christ in all persons” loving our neighbor as ourselves, and to “strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being”. Thus we oppose every form of bigotry, violence, and discrimination, and we support equal rights under the law for everyone.
• As a Windsor Diocese with a Windsor Bishop, we strive to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all things. In St. John’s Gospel our Lord says, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (16:12-13). We don’t know the fullness of God and God’s truth and will not until we are in God’s nearer presence; in the interim we will not shrink from any effort—no matter how challenging, how unnerving, how painful—to know God and God’s truth as it is revealed to us by the Spirit. Indeed, we will be assertive in seeking to discern that divine truth.
• As a Windsor Diocese with a Windsor Bishop, we will be faithful to the process set out before us by the Archbishop of Canterbury—including the listening process and the covenant development process recommended by Windsor and endorsed by General Convention. The process involves a working group already appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council to assess The Episcopal Church’s response to Windsor, and to assist the Archbishop of Canterbury as he prepares for the next Primates’ Meeting (February 2007) and Lambeth Conference 2008.

How can I be hopeful? General Convention, although intense in its focus on Windsor, was not distracted from the overall mission of Christ. We affirmed the Millennium Development Goals, a worldwide effort to eliminate global poverty, by devoting .07% of our resources to that effort. We passed resolutions strengthening our commitments to evangelism, church planting, and many issues at the heart of the social gospel. We responded to our Lord’s call for the unity of the Church, not only by our resolute commitment to the Anglican Communion, but by entering into an interim agreement with the United Methodists. All this fills me with hope.

Beloved, a final point: By God’s grace and mercy, I pledge to you my commitment to stay the course—to continue with vigor what we have begun together—a commitment which found its stellar moment in the Great Gathering. These may be “wilderness” times for us—akin to the wilderness of our Israelite forebears. Like them, we could lose heart and lose our way—but, as a people of biblical hope, we need do neither. Your Diocesan Council and I have made a covenant that, together, we will commit ourselves and our best efforts to live more and more fully into our plan for being Christ present in the world as “One Body” with “One Mission” which is “Changing Lives”. This is a covenant all Episcopalians in Upper South Carolina share, and I believe to be one which God can bless as our best efforts to be faithful to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

“After washing their feet and taking his garments again, (Jesus) sat down. ‘Do you understand what I have done for you?’ he asked. ‘…(I)f I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example: you are to do as I have done for you.”

As we face with both hope and challenge the times ahead, what does our Lord’s example say to us in our relationships within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion—and, indeed, within the Church Catholic? Consider the concluding words of the Windsor Report: “Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration.”

Kneeling and washing feet, working not for division but for healing and restoration—seems like a good place to stand—following the example of our Blessed Lord—our true hope and our life.

God bless you and keep you.

Faithfully yours in that Blessed Lord,

Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr.

Upper South Carolina VII

The Bishop Speaks #2 (July 5, 2006)

On the Respose of General Convention to the

Windsor Report

Beloved, there has been much conversation and consternation, expressed publicly and privately, about the response of The Episcopal Church to the recommendations of the Windsor Report. There are, to be sure, those who feel that ECUSA went too far and did too much, and there are those who feel that ECUSA failed to go far enough—and did too little. I thought it would be helpful for us to see, side-by-side, the specific requests made by the Windsor Commission in its report, and the specific responses from the Convention. The comparison brings some clarity to me; my hope is that it will be helpful to you in that same regard.

Before reading the following comparison, I recommend that you read the provisions of Resolution A159, subject: “Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion”. It expresses the mind of the General Convention, and I believe of The Episcopal Church, about its place within the larger Communion.

Study the comparisons; pray about them; discuss them with Episcopalians of like-mind and of different opinions.

---

* FINAL VERSION - Concurred

Resolution A159

Title: Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion
Topic: Anglican Communion
Committee: 26. Special Legislative Committee
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm that The Episcopal Church is in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention join with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council in making a commitment to the vision of interdependent life in Christ, characterized by forbearance, trust, and respect, and commend the Windsor Report and process as a means of deepening our understanding of that commitment; and be it further

Resolved, That as an expression of interdependence, the Presiding offices of both Houses work in partnership with the churches of the Anglican Communion to explore ways by which there might be inter-Anglican consultation and participation on Standing Commissions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.

EXPLANATION

The Windsor Report is part of a process for maintaining the highest degree of communion possible. The first two resolve clauses of this resolution state this General Convention’s desire for full life in the Anglican Communion and to maintain the distinctively Anglican bonds of communion. At their 2005 meeting, the primates requested “all Provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in” sections A and B of the Windsor Report (Dromantine Communiqué, paragraph 8 ). The third resolve addresses this question. The final resolve clause invites members of other Anglican churches into the deliberations of our standing commissions as an expression of our mutual responsibility and interdependence with sister and brother Christians from around the world.

* Resolution is final but status and text are still under review before publication.

What Windsor Recommends:	What GC ’06 Resolved:
1. “The adoption…of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion” (WR 118).	1. “That…The Episcopal Church…support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission…” (A166).
2. “The Episcopal Church…express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of (ECUSA) to remain within the Communion” (WR 134).	2. “That…The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ’ (WR 134) express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another” (A 160).
3. “The (ECUSA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (WR 134).	3. “That the 75 th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation…and 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” (B 033).
4. “(W)e call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorize public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions” (WR 143).	4. The resolution submitted by the Special Legislative Commission at one point was attached to the resolution regarding election and consecration of bishops. When it appeared that the resolution would not progress with both highly controversial subjects combined, the portion having to do with rites of blessing was removed. However, this did not reflect a decision of the GC to ignore the request. Under the category of “actions speak louder than words”: (1) the Special Legislative Committee recommended “discharge” or “reject” for Resolution D057, which would have called for the authorization and preparation of such rites, and the proposal died without action at the conclusion of General Convention; (2) the House of Bishops rejected, upon the recommendation of the Special Committee, Resolution D017, entitled “Marriage Rite in Book of Common Prayer for Same-Sex Couples”; (3) C004, which would have affirmed “support (of) the blessing of (same-sex) unions and the ordination or consecration of persons in those unions”; was, upon recommendation of the Special Committee, discharged by the House of Deputies. Another reason for not responding to WR with an additional resolution and/or action: The Episcopal Church has not authorized public rites, despite a misunderstanding to the contrary, so found it unnecessary to promise not to do something which the Church has never done.
5. “(W)e recommend that the Instruments of Unity…find practical ways in which the ‘listening’ process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, so that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender relationships” (WR 143).	5. “That…The Episcopal Church commend the Windsor Report’s offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion’ (Primates Communiqué) and as an essential and substantive contribution to the process of living into deeper levels of communion and interdependence across the Anglican Communion; and…commit(s) to the ongoing ‘Windsor Process,’ a process of discernment as to the nature and unity of the Church…and urge all members of this church to commit themselves to the call of greater communion and interdependent life; and…commend the ‘listening process’ as recommended in the Windsor Report…and…commit this church to participating fully and openly in this ‘listening process’…” (A 165).
6. “(W)e commend a conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight for (dissenting groups…seeking to be faithful members of the Anglican family)” and “commend the proposals for delegated Episcopal oversight set out by the House of Bishops of (ECUSA) in 2004” (WR 151 & 152). Noting that “we do not favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions”, the Commission called upon bishops intervening in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own “to effect a moratorium on any further interventions” (WR 155).	6. “That…The Episcopal Church affirm the centrality of effective and appropriate pastoral care for all members of this church and all who come seeking the aid of this church; and…commit The Episcopal Church to the ongoing engagement of and sensitive response to the request and need of all the people of God – in particular, but not exclusively, those who agree and those who disagree with the actions of this body, those who feel isolated thereby, and gay and lesbian persons within and without this Church; and…recognize the agonizing position of those who do not feel able to receive appropriate pastoral care from their own bishops, and urges the members of the House of Bishops to seek the highest degree of communion and reconciliation within their own dioceses, using when requested in good faith the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight…process detailed in the March 2004 statement of the House of Bishops; and…urge continued maintenance of historic diocesan boundaries, the authority of the diocesan bishop, and respect for the historical relationships of the separate and autonomous Provinces of the Anglican Communion” (A 163).

The Bishop Speaks # 1 (June 28, 2006)

On the Election of the 26th Presiding Bishop

Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori and I served on the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, meeting regularly over the eight-month period immediately preceding General Convention. From that experience in particular, but from our shared ministry as bishops generally, I perceive that she:Loves the Lord and the Lord’s Church;Is committed to the Anglican Communion;Listens to, honors, and provides space for those whose convictions differ from her own;Is exceptionally bright, creative and articulate. Based on her comments to the House of Bishops and House of Deputies on the last day of convention, urging both houses to adopt the resolution on the election of and consent to bishops, I also perceive that she is capable of exercising firm leadership when necessary.

I did not vote for her, but my reason had nothing to do with lack of confidence in her qualifications for the ministry of Presiding Bishop as provided in our Constitution and Canons. Rather, my decision was guided by the perception that, at this time, the unity of the Episcopal Church and the “highest degree of communion” with other Anglican Provinces would be served better by a bishop whose vote in 2003 was broadly acceptable throughout the Communion and whose experience as a reconciler within the Episcopal Church had already been tested and known.

I believe that she has the skills and gifts which will serve the Church and her well, as the one who

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!