Time for the Gamaliel principle

From Brad Drell, some thoughts on the future of the Anglican Communion [boldface mine]:

. . . On a personal note, it dawned on me that Provincial Synod is coming up for Province VII, and then General Convention 2009 in a year, which as I get older seems like less and less time. Lately, I’ve been feeling like, well, not going. Getting a note from my doctor or my wife saying I’m too well to attend these meetings. Of course I am going to go and do my duty. Mostly to vote no at GC2009. No to whatever comes up. That was Bishop Robinson’s strategy to kill my prison ministry resolution in the structure committee, despite the sheer number of sponsors I had on the other side of the sexuality issues signed up on the measure. It came from me, so it had to die, despite the fact that this same resolution was passed at GC2003, with only a few changes made to update it for GC2006.

At one time, I had some hope for reconciliation, after participating in the exercises here in Western Louisiana. I simply don’t think it is possible anymore. I don’t think anyone else really thinks it is possible anymore. If some sort of structural relief were to come in which I, as a conservative, Bible-believing Christian who is about equally evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, could remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with integrity, I would take it. So would a lot of other people, including quite a few solid Episcopal bishops. Frankly, folks, it just isn’t going to happen. I’ll be cheering the loudest if it does. But, it is something the liberals just can’t give.

The only thing Canterbury could do to help this situation is to recognize those who have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada as Anglicans as well, and then see which part of the Anglican Communion prospers under the Gamaliel principle. He wouldn’t need anyone else’s approval to do that symbolically. Short of that, I think the Anglican Communion is pretty much over, as is the Church of England.

Read it all.

Five dioceses publicly oppose depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox

Here are the five dioceses (so far) that have publicly opposed the actions of the Presiding Bishop and the Episcopal Church house of bishops:

• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina (The Rt. Rev Mark Lawrence endorsed the letter) March 27


• The Standing Committee and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Western Louisiana (in a resolution authorized by the diocesan Standing Committee and endorsed by the bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson, and Diocesan Council) April 14


• Diocesan Board and Standing Committee and Bishop John W. Howe of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida May 15


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Springfield (The Rt. Rev Peter H. Beckwith endorsed the letter and actions of his Diocesan Council) May 22


• The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Indiana May 27

H/t to VirtueOnline.

Is 815 going to ask for canons to intervene in conservative dioceses way before they leave?

From Brad Drell:

From the Living Church:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori made it clear Friday night that she will direct The Episcopal Church to move ahead to reconstitute the Diocese of San Joaquin and to establish control over church property swiftly. In addition, she said, she intends to begin the process of revising the denomination’s canons to allow it to deal more expeditiously with breakaway bishops.

“I expect to see revisions to the canons to deal with situations like the one that you have been living with in San Joaquin for several years,” she said.

It is the “for several years” part that has me mighty worried. So, women’s ordination becomes mandatory, as does non-celibate gay ordination as they are arguing about the Bishop of North Dakota, same sex unions become mandatory, etc.

Western Louisiana, it is time to pack our bags or surrender to the Borg. . .

Read it all.

Bishop John Howe responds to Petre’s report and provides details of the plan

From Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm, a response from Bishop John Howe of Central Florida to yesterday's story on the "Secret plan to avoid church split" [boldface mine]:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow. And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday's meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

Petre could not have been much more inaccurate! Here are his opening remarks:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a 'parallel' Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality.... Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders....

"Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world's bishops....

"According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues."

No, Dear Friends. Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday. We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:

Communion Partners

In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.

Purpose:

To provide a visible link for those concerned to the Anglican Communion

Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.

To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops

The Bishops who have been designated Episcopal Visitors together with others who might well consider being included in this number share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future, and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the Global South. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.

To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles..

The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.

Scope:

The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no "charter" or formal structure

Are committed to non-boundary-crossing: the relationships will be governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and cooperation

Will work with mutual cooperation within and beyond the partnership

Participants:

The Episcopal Visitors who desire to participate (EVs named at House of Bishops New Orleans)

Those Bishops who are willing to serve as EVs

Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East

Transparency:

Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury

Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches

Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprize her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in "border crossing," nor would we be. We will visit
no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop's invitation and permission. We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.

I hope this is helpful, and I thank you for your prayers regarding this important meeting.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Check it out, and here's more from George Conger:

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has endorsed a programme of alternative Episcopal oversight brought to her by a group of conservative American bishops.

The “Anglican Bishops in Communion” seeks to meld the Primates’ Dar es Salaam pastoral council scheme with the “Episcopal Visitor” programme created by Bishop Schori in a bid to hold the fissiparous elements of American Anglicanism together until an Anglican Covenant is agreed. . .

Okay, we've had the Camp Allen bishops, the Windsor bishops, the Episcopal Visitor bishops, and now we have the Anglican Bishops in Communion - sorry, I think I agree with Philip Bowers commenting at Stand Firm [boldface mine]:

. . . TEC will not be disciplined by the AC. A Church that does not discipline is not a Church. The only way forward for the orthodox is GS realignment, and if that fails to materialize, it’s to some other branch of Christ’s Body I go. Despite the best intentions of Radner and Seitz, it seems to me that border crossing is a red herring in this mess. Everyone has forgotten or ignored the primates clarification and adjustment of Windsor at Dromatine that placed border crossing at a much lower level of seriousness than heterodox moral teaching and practice, yet it is the latter that will entail no discipline, no official sanctions and consequences, that will continue unabated and uninhibited, and it is the minor issue that the primates recognized as an unfortunate necessity that is being addressed by the communion. TEC has won the battle for the hearts and minds of the Canterbury AC. The GS needs to get on with a separate structure.

The so-called Windsor bishops are a great disappointment. They are proven to be institutionalists who are too cowardly to defend the faith. Just remember their collective silence at N[ew] O[rleans] that was heard around the world. How shameful. It will take only two generations for the heterodox revisionists to consolidate their hold as the remaining orthodox bishops face retirement. It is sad to see that these bishops cannot see that the political game is over; there remains only mop-up operations that will continue at full speed from PB Shori and 815.

Brad Drell: My conversation/interview with Bishop MacPherson this morning

From Brad Drell at Drell's Descants:

. . . I asked +Bruce [Bishop Bruce MacPherson of the Diocese of Western Louisiana] to expand his thoughts on the New Orleans resolution. He stated that people on both sides were uncomfortable with this resolution. He feels progress was made in the realm of the consent to future bishops engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage. On the floor of the House of Bishops at General Convention in Columbus, some 30 bishops repudiated B033 and stated that would not abide by it. These 30 bishops have now agreed to abide by it. That is what +Bruce means by some progress being made. He feels that this is a significant change from where this house was at General Convention. +Bruce voted against B033 at General Convention, but felt that the New Orleans resolution was clearer (but not perfect).

On the issue of same sex blessings, +Bruce told me that the language was not strong or clear enough. He believes more bishops will take this issue seriously after this meeting, but knows that some bishops are going to continue to do what they have been doing, which is to allow same sex blessings to occur, even though they are not authorized.

+Bruce also confirmed that he believes that Charles Bennison was the only no vote to the resolution. . .

Read it all.