AAC: Response to the Advent Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury from Bishop David C. Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Message from Bishop David C. Anderson

Beloved in Christ,

Not having written last week because I was in the bishops-elect pre-consecration retreat, it is good to be back with you and be able to share some thoughts on domestic and international events in the Anglican world.

Nigeria, as well as some other Anglican Communion provinces, takes the preparation of a new bishop very seriously. Four of us, together with our wives, spent five full days on a mountaintop (literally) near Harper’s Ferry, WV being schooled in both spiritual and practical dimensions of the office of a bishop. In the midst of this time it snowed about eight inches, and the temperature dropped into the teens Fahrenheit. Then the well at the retreat center ran dry—no water for about 15 hours. It was really a test to see if we were up to this new calling. The consecration service was deeply impacting and moving to me and the others, but it still seems odd to have people say "bishop" and it doesn't yet occur to me that they might be trying to get my attention.

While our CANA services were underway that second weekend in December, across the United States in San Joaquin the diocese voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and its problems—spiritual and contentious—and find an orthodox and safe home in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The AAC applauds their actions and wishes them the very best; we look forward to our continued mutual relationship in ministry and mission with them over the coming years.

One of the major events of recent days is the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter which, when it is peeled apart, shows both a lack of personal conviction on moral and spiritual issues, but a clear resolve on acquisition of power. A TEC priest, who for the moment will remain anonymous, summed up Williams' Advent missive as follows:

• Trying further to pin down TEC is futile.


• We will not exclude those who violate doctrine.


• We will exclude those who violate discipline (structure).


• Anglicanism has failed.

I think the good father is close, but wrong on the last line, which I believe should read “Lambeth Palace/Anglican Communion Office Anglicanism has failed.”

I say this because the orthodox majority as measured by seats in the pew:

• Definitely wishes to pin down TEC.


• Would definitely place on probation those who violate doctrine.


• Would understand and accommodate those whose moral actions were non-normative to structure and discipline


• Is part of a vibrant and growing Global South Anglican Christianity.

What do you do with a meat market that weighs their thumb along with the meat? Replace the manager! What should the Anglican Communion do with those in high or low positions who always ask others but weigh their own thumbs? Bishops Robinson and Schori are not the problems; they are the symptom of a problem, the answer of which is found at the top, looking wistfully out of Lambeth's window.

In the Advent Letter there is no call for TEC to repent or even do better, but rather for all of us to accept that they are locked into their iniquity and we have to accept that as it is. They stay at the table, and the orthodox have the burden of trying to figure out how to live with them. Additionally, it is clear that the AMiA, CANA, Kenya and Uganda USA bishops are not only unwelcome or unworthy to sit with Dr. Williams, but he questions their LEGITIMACY. In one quote he says, "And while … I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimized by the Communion overall." It is finally not those few of us that he is really attacking, but our Primates: Akinola, Orombi, Nzimbi, and Kolini. The actions of Primate Venables really upset his sense of order as well, because now Canadian and American bishops and one entire diocese have changed provinces and moved to the Southern Cone.

Dr. Williams announces in his letter that he is seizing yet more power and initiative, principally to punish the orthodox, by several new actions. He is launching "professionally facilitated conversations" between TEC and those they are most in dispute with to see if there is any better level of mutual understanding. What part of the last ten years does he not understand? The TEC revisionists do understand us and fear us. That is why, like pharaoh, they are trying to prevent our multiplying. And we do understand the revisionists, and we are determined not to go to hell with them, no matter what the cost of our resistance. In launching this new action, he also announces that he knows who he will pick to do it. This is not collegial. This is power.

He also intends to convene a small group of Primates, hand picked by himself, to work supposedly with other groups to decide "whether...it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion [does he mean boundary crossings or adherence to Lambeth 1.10?] to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies." This means that those Primates who have done the morally right thing could be kicked off of Communion boards and bodies for their “disruptive actions.” Then concerning those of us who are US Anglican bishops answering to overseas Primates, this hand-picked group of primates "will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another."

The questions for today are, "Do we have to go through Canterbury to be Christian?" and "Do we have to go through Lambeth Palace to be Anglican?" Many will be searching their souls to deal with these questions. Dr. Williams also asks "who speaks for Anglicanism?" and I would suggest that the faithful orthodox Anglicans themselves speak for the Anglicanism of today and the future. Dr. Williams speaks for the dead and dying Anglicanism of a tired and confused structure.

In this season of Advent, I am sustained knowing that Jesus is coming back in power and glory, and that His reign will be perfect. All the troubles of this present age will fall away, and those whose names are written in the Book of Life will be gathered up and live with him forever. Amen.

Have a Blessed Advent!

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

San Joaquin bishop asked to confirm status after vote to leave the Episcopal Church

From EpiscopalLife Online (although after their earlier hit-piece story on Bishop Schofield, read this with a BIG dose of skepticism) [boldface mine]:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has written to Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield saying that she assumes his declaration that he is now under the authority of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone "means you understand yourself to have departed the Episcopal Church and are no longer functioning as a member of the clergy in this Church."

In a December 14 letter which was emailed to Schofield, Jefferts Schori wrote that she was "deeply saddened" to hear of the San Joaquin convention's actions.

"I would like to have confirmation from you of this understanding of your status," she wrote. "Many interrelated matters depend on that status -- for example, your membership in the House of Bishops and the acceptability of pension contributions on your behalf."

Delegates attending the 48th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin on December 8 voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. . .

The San Joaquin convention also voted to remove all references to the Episcopal Church from its constitution and describe the diocese as "a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury."

During an exchange of letters prior to convention, Jefferts Schori had advised Schofield that approval of the constitutional changes would "implicitly reject the Church's property and other canons."

Regarding the diocese's intention to affiliate with the Southern Cone, she said: "If you continue along this path…it will be necessary to ascertain whether you have in fact abandoned the communion of this church, and violated your own vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church.". . .

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

The full text of the Presiding Bishop's letter follows:

December 14, 2007

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC
Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 E. Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726

My dear brother,

I was deeply saddened to hear of the actions of the Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin this past weekend, particularly the declaration that you are no longer part of The Episcopal Church, but are now under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. I assume that this means you understand yourself to have departed the Episcopal Church and are no longer functioning as a member of the clergy in this Church.

I would like to have confirmation from you of this understanding of your status. Many interrelated matters depend on that status – for example, your membership in the House of Bishops and the acceptability of pension contributions on your behalf.
You continue in my prayers.

Yours in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori

Read it all.

Snubbing cancer study will only hurt women

From an October column by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune [boldface mine]:

During National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is fitting and proper that women be informed about any newly discovered dangers, even as the public groans under the weight of all the warnings surrounding the mere act of living.

For example, a well-researched Chicago Tribune story last week disclosed that women who have just a couple of alcoholic drinks daily increase their breast cancer risk by 13 percent. Coincidentally, a new study reported that abortion is an important breast cancer risk factor, yet I couldn't find a word describing the research in mainstream media.

How to explain this disparity? I'll be vigorously advised that "most" studies disprove an abortion-breast cancer link. Or that the study in question appeared in a "conservative" scientific journal. Or that the study is bogus or unimportant. Or, more rudely, that the whole breast cancer argument has been concocted by anti-abortion rights advocates to make women afraid to have abortions. The issue is dead, I'll be notified. Kaput. Here I would remind critics that in science it's not who says it or how many say it that counts. What does count are the data and the rigor with which they are collected, analyzed and held up to a scientifically credible hypothesis.

So let's look at the science of this latest study, which appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Using statistical techniques and reliable national health data, the study of eight European countries found, to a statistically significant degree, that the incidence of breast cancer increases with the incidence of earlier abortions. The researcher, Patrick Carroll, used the same mathematical model employed in a 1997 study that predicted with extraordinary accuracy breast cancer increases in England and Wales from 1998 to 2004. Using that model, Carroll predicts that countries with higher abortion rates -- England and Wales -- could expect a troubling increase in breast cancer rates. The Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, where abortion rates are lower, should experience a smaller increase. And in Denmark and Finland, where abortion rates have declined, cancer rates should similarly decline. Some will object because the study is "only" epidemiological -- meaning that it relies on a statistically significant relationship between the incidence of breast cancer and abortion to infer that one causes the other. The standard, but simple-minded, objection to epidemiological studies is that a correlation does not necessarily prove causation. That's true, to some extent. But, epidemiologists use correlations in more complex ways, combining them with a range of medical, sociological, psychological and other information to lead their research in the right direction, to support or debunk hypotheses, and toward solutions for significant public health problems.

In the study of the abortion-breast cancer link, the working hypothesis is simple: For a woman who has not had a child before, an induced abortion is more likely to cause cancer because it interrupts the hormonal development of breast cells for later lactation, thus leaving the cells more vulnerable to uncontrolled and abnormal division, i.e. cancer.

The problem with dismissing the Carroll study because it is epidemiological is that you'll also have to dismiss a multitude of public health studies, including ones claiming a link between radon and lung cancer. These are the same epidemiological studies that alarmed millions of Americans, frightening them into buying radon detectors and creating a huge radon mitigation business. No study is perfect, and Carroll's shortcoming is that his data do not allow comparisons of individual women over time. But other major studies have, and according to one unchallenged compressive analysis of those studies, they show that a pregnant woman who has never had a child before and aborts in the first term increased her chance of breast cancer by 50 percent. . .

Read it all.

Archbishop of Canterbury: No change over gay bishop

From the Associated Press:

LONDON (AP) — The archbishop of Canterbury said Friday he will not reverse his decision to exclude a gay U.S. bishop from joining other bishops at a global Anglican gathering next year.

Archbishop Rowan Williams' office said he had also not changed his mind about refusing an invitation to Martyn Minns, a traditionalist U.S. priest who was consecrated as a bishop in the Church of Nigeria.

Williams said he has also recruited professional help in trying to reach greater understanding between the U.S. Episcopal Church and its critics both at home and abroad. Williams' office was unable to say immediately whether any invitations had been extended or accepted.

In his Advent message to leaders of Anglican national churches, Williams said Episcopal Church pledges of a moratorium on confirming any more gay bishops or on approving blessings of homosexual unions have not been accepted by all parts of the communion.

"Given the differences in response to the Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between (the Episcopal Church) and other provinces," Williams said. "Much work remains to be done."

Statements by individual U.S. bishops that seemed to deviate from the declarations the bishops agreed to in New Orleans in September have complicated the situation, the archbishop said.

Williams also had stern words for Anglican leaders who have threatened not to attend the Lambeth Conference, held every 10 years and scheduled to start in July in Canterbury.

The head of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, has threatened to boycott the session because Williams also refused an invitation to Minns.

"I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross — and so of the Resurrection," Williams said.

"We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic questions."

Williams called for professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of the Episcopal Church "and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding.". . .

Read it all.

Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter

From the Anglican Communion News Service:

To: Primates of the Anglican Communion & Moderators of the United Churches

Greetings in the name of the One 'who is and was and is to come, the Almighty', as we prepare in this Advent season to celebrate once more his first coming and pray for the grace to greet him when he comes in glory.

You will by now, I hope, have received my earlier letter summarising the responses from Primates to the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. In that letter, I promised to write with some further reflections and proposals, and this is the purpose of the present communication. Although I am writing in the first instance to my fellow-primates, I hope you will share this letter widely with your bishops and people.

As I said in that earlier letter, the responses received from primates differed in their assessment of the situation. Slightly more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to accept the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement, but the rest regarded both the statement and the Standing Committee's comments as an inadequate response to what had been requested by the primates in Dar-es-Salaam.

So we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement. It is also the case that some of the more negative assessments from primates were clearly influenced by the reported remarks of individual bishops in The Episcopal Church who either declared their unwillingness to abide by the terms of the statement or argued that it did not imply any change in current policies. It should be noted too that some of the positive responses reflected a deep desire to put the question decisively behind us as a Communion; some of these also expressed dissatisfaction with our present channels of discussion and communication.

2.

Where does this leave us as a Communion? Because we have no single central executive authority, the answer to this is not a simple one. However, it is important to try and state what common ground there is before we attempt to move forward; and it is historically an aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'articulate the mind of the Communion' in moments of tension and controversy, as the Windsor Report puts it (para. 109). I do so out of the profound conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of God to the wholeness of Christ's Church and that all of us will be seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any further; but also out of the no less profound conviction that our identity as Anglicans is not something without boundaries. What I am writing here is an attempt to set out where some of those boundaries lie and why they matter for our witness to the world as well as for our own integrity and mutual respect.

The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.

So a full relationship of communion will mean:

i. The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith', in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.

ii. The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks – of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.

iii. The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in this way.
It is in this context that we must think about the present crisis, which is in significant part a crisis about whether we can fully, honestly and gratefully recognise these gifts in each other.

The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name. But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.

This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.

Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith) encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.

The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.

Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates' Meetings have, however, cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state of our neighbours.

3.

While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.

Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion. The repeated requests for clarification to The Episcopal Church, difficult and frustrating as they have proved for that province, have been an attempt by the Communion at large to deal with the many anxieties expressed in this regard. The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion.

That challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad hoc arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere, as the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué made plain. The New Orleans statement, along with many individual statements by bishops in TEC, expresses the anger felt by many in the US – as also in Canada – about uncontrolled intervention, and it is evident that this is not doing anything to advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological and canonical solidity.

I believe that we as a Communion must recognise two things in respect of the current position in TEC. First: most if not all of the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to find a way of meeting the requests of the primates and to express a sense of responsibility towards the Communion and their concern for and loyalty to it. It is of enormous importance that the Communion overall does not forget its responsibility to and for that large body of prayerful opinion in The Episcopal Church which sincerely desires to work in full harmony with others, particularly those bishops who have clearly expressed their desire to work within the framework both of the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, and that it does not give way to the temptation to view The Episcopal Church as a monochrome body. Second: it is practically impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming from TEC after the successive statements and resolutions from last year's General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.

The exact interpretation of the New Orleans statements, as the responses from around the Communion indicate, is disputable. I do not see how the commitment not to confirm any election to the episcopate of a partnered gay or lesbian person can mean anything other than what it says. But the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.

A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected. Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to all parties.

A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.

The exchange between TEC and the wider Communion has now been continuing for some four years, and it would be unrealistic and ungrateful to expect more from TEC in terms of clarification. Whatever our individual perspectives, I think we need to honour the intentions and the hard work done by the bishops of TEC. For many of them, this has been a very costly and demanding experience, testing both heart and conscience. But now we need to determine a way forward.

4.

The whole of this discussion is naturally affected by what people are thinking about the character and scope of the Lambeth Conference, and I need to say a word about this here. Thus far, invitations have been issued with two considerations in mind.

First: I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal ordination was carried through against the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit this (the reference in the New Orleans statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'expressed desire' to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire misunderstands what was said earlier this year, when the question was left open as to whether the Bishop, as a non-participant, could conceivably be present as a guest at some point or at some optional event). And while (as I have said above) I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimised by the Communion overall.

I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.

Second: I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.

How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation. It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation is.

Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed, our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other. This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be.

And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic questions.

This means some hard reflective work in preparation for the Conference - including pursuing conversations with each other across the current divisions. There will also be a number of documents circulating which will feed into the Conference's discussions, in particular the work of the Covenant Design Group, the resources available from the dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Report of the Doctrinal commission and the papers coming from IASCER. Also significant will be the papers on the core elements of Anglican ministerial education and formation prepared by the group advising the Primates on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the paper on the theology of inter faith relations prepared by the Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON), Generous Love.

But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial. Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others. Whatever happens, certain aspects of our 'relational' communion will continue independently of the debates and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies.

Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between TEC and other provinces. Much work remains to be done. But – once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts – that work is about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality. It is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably, the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as sharing the same calling and task.

5.

Finally, what specific recommendations emerge from these thoughts?

I propose two different but related courses of action during the months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.

I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of 'who speaks for the Communion?' is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a positive rallying-point.

6.

A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.

The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God's sons and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but pray, obey and be ready for God's re-creating work through the eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?

'The Spirit and the bride say, "Come"... Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen' (Rev.22.17, 20-21).

Spectator Christmas survey: Do you believe in the Virgin Birth?

From The Spectator (U.K.) [boldface mine] (Vital Signs Blog provided the info on who some of these people are - and some are self-explanatory):

Christmas is not just about shopping and flirting, eating and drinking, anger and remorse. It is also about the Incarnation. But how many people believe in the Christian story of Christmas, and how strong is their belief? To find out, The Spectator approached leading public figures in the Churches, in the arts and the media and in politics, and asked them: ‘Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ?’ Here are their challenging — and sometimes surprising — answers.

The Most Reverend and Right Hon. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:

Yes; I believe that the conception of Jesus was a moment when the creative action of God produced a reality as new in its way as the first moment of creation itself. And I believe that what opened the way for this was the work of God through human history over centuries, coming to its fullest moment in Mary’s consent to God’s call. The recognition of the uniqueness and newness of Jesus is a recognition of the absolute freedom of God to break the chains of cause and effect that lock us into our sins and failures; the virginal conception is an outward sign of this divine freedom to make new beginnings.

His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster:

Of course. All teaching about Mary the Mother of God points us to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The miracle of his birth shows us that he is God-with-us. Jesus has only God as Father and Mary as Mother and in his birth we are adopted as children of the Father in the Holy Spirit. We look to Mary as a Mother who loves us.

Colin Wilson (prolific English writer whose novels and non-fiction alike dwell on the issues of human potential and existentialism):

No, of course I don’t, and I imagine you’ll have some difficulty finding any educated person who believes in it, or any other Christian dogma. Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, only the third survives.

James Delingpole (British libertarian who writes on matters political and social):

Look, I’ve successfully survived 42 years as a member of the Church of England without ever having to give serious thought to the Virgin Birth and I jolly well don’t see why I should be put on the spot now just for the sake of a Speccie feature. I guess that makes me a ‘Don’t Know’, which is a terrible thing to admit given that I’m halfway towards being a pillar of my beloved Chelsea Old Church. But that’s the great thing about being C of E, isn’t it? If I were Catholic, I suppose I’d have to find the issue intensely important. Me, I care more about hymns having the right tunes, and the Prayer Book being 1662. . .

The Revd Professor Keith Ward (theologian, professor, and ordained priest in the Church of England):

I do not believe in the Virgin Birth. The point of the Biblical account is to see Jesus as the start of a new creation, fulfilling the hopes of the ‘virgin Israel’. I do not dogmatically deny it, but think it probably legendary.

The Revd Nicky Gumbel, Vicar, Holy Trinity, Brompton (former atheist, lawyer, author, ordained Anglican priest, and the developer of the Alpha course, a basic introduction to Christianity supported by all the major Christian denominations):

I do believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus is the unique Son of God. The Virgin Birth was a miracle. The real issue facing the world today is ‘Is there a God?’ If there is, then miracles become a real possibility. If God is God, then he created matter, reason, time, space and all scientific laws and therefore is at liberty to interfere. If there is no God, then miracles are a problem. But philosophy and science alone will not answer the crucial question. Scientific laws are not like the laws of pure mathematics that cannot be broken. Rather they are descriptive. Once I came to believe in the great miracle — that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us — I had no problem in believing in the Virgin Birth. . .

The Rt Revd Dr Michael J. Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester:

Yes. The story is reported by both Matthew and Luke, who rely on independent traditions for their material. It is also echoed in other parts of the New Testament. There is good reason to believe that there was something very unusual about the birth of Jesus, even his enemies and detractors acknowledged this and early anti-Christian polemic had to find ways of dealing with it. Finally, there is, of course, the testimony of the Koran which relies on yet another stream of tradition! Quite a lot of evidence for the birth of a child, don’t you think?

Charles Moore (former editor of the Daily Telegraph, 1995–2003):

Jesus Christ was true God and true Man: the Virgin Birth is an obstetric statement of this fact. . .

Christopher Hitchens:

I no more believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary than I believe that Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka, Horus was born of the virgin Isis, Mercury was born of the virgin Maia or Romulus was born of the virgin Rhea Sylvia. As the preceding examples help to demonstrate, parthenogenesis would in any case not be proof either of divine paternity or of the truth of any subsequent preachings. The authors of St Matthew — whose account cannot be squared with the one offered by Luke — in any case seem to have mistranslated the Hebrew word almah, meaning ‘young woman’, from the original legend in the book of Isaiah. Christianity insults our intelligence as well as our innate morality by insisting that we believe absurdities that are drawn from the mythology of paganism and barbarism.

Paul Johnson (British Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter, popular author, winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom):

The Incarnation is the most delightful, human, visually beautiful and delicate of all Christian beliefs. The idea of God’s son coming to earth in the womb of a virgin, and being born in a manger, is beyond the power of any mortal imagination to invent and is so obviously true that anyone who denies it must have the feelings of a brute. . .

NO SHOWS

Three bishops were too busy to help The Spectator with its inquiries: The Rt Revd John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford; the Rt Revd Richard Chartres, Bishop of London; and the Most Revd Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States. The following politicians did not respond to approaches made through their offices: the Prime Minister (who may have been too busy), Liam Fox, David Cameron, George Galloway and Tony Blair.

Read it all.
H/t to Vital Signs Blog.

wolf comments on actions by Bishop Schofield at convention

From Stand Firm, a comment from wolf in response to EpiscopalLife Online's inaccurate article on happenings at the diocesan convention in San Joaquin [boldface mine]:

Although I have been a fan of Stand Firm for some time, I have never before posted a comment. After reading this slanderous article against my bishop, however, I could not just sit back and say nothing. This article is so full of lies and distortions it is, indeed, laughable--but not funny. I not only attended the convention, but I also spoke to the convention in favor of the resolution. Our bishop showed great leadership. He was gracious and loving, yet courageous and firm.

The “unnamed” person, who also abstained, was sharply rebuked by our bishop on the first day of our convention, when this person was arrogantly and angrily trying to force his position on the question of abstaining and using secret ballots. Part of his argument was that an abstention should be counted as a vote which, of course, is absurd. His comments to the ENS are beyond the pale and are born out of anger and vengeance. May God have mercy on his soul. The bishop certainly did not unilaterally declare a secret ballot out of order. He did declare the individual out of order. A vote, indeed, was taken to decide the question of secret ballots and, as was already stated, was strongly defeated.

Anyone who knows our bishop knows that he his a just, kind and holy man. Now that we have disassociated from TEC, the Enemy will use everything and everyone at his disposal to discredit our bishop and our decision, especially via distortions, lies and law suits.

So be it. We are ready for him.

Hey, this is why I love the Internet!

EVE (Genesis 3:23)

They walk to the very edge of paradise,
having already betrayed their loving Lord,
ashamed, yet willing to pay whatever the price.
They pass the Cherubim, the flaming sword,
then see the lovely world beneath their feet.
It's beautiful. But Eve knows in her heart
the sun's burning too bright in a world replete
with thorns and sweat, thistles, and dust-thou-art.
This is the battlefield, the fallen place
where Satan and his legions lie within,
in wait, with death, with every other disgrace,
within a world now inundate with sin.
Standing with Adam, in the burning sun,
she whispers, softly, "What have we done?"

William Baer

Shoe Thursday: Holiday edition

Ever since Thanksgiving, I feel as though I've been playing "catch-up" and I haven't caught up yet! But it's gotten serious now - it's affecting my attitude towards shoes. I haven't seen anything tremendously special for Christmas, but here are some that seem "okay" right now - maybe on another day they would be outstanding.

Nice sparkle

Nice color (not red or silver or gold)


Of course, the obligatory Christmas red


Pretty silver


Please, do not try these at home (the ugly Christmas shoe)


And I think these are my favorite so far - just so pretty

"Continuing Episcopalians making plans to reconstitute Diocese of San Joaquin"

From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine] (I have a real problem with this piece because of the negative innuendo and reliance on a single anonymous source for information about Bishop Schofield and the diocesan process - this is NOT a journalistic piece, but one full of rumors, overt bias, and conjecture):

Local leaders, along with those from the wider church, are already making plans for the continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin following a vote to disassociate from the Episcopal Church.

Michael Glass, a San Rafael, California-based attorney who represents congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, told Episcopal News Service (ENS) December 11 that he, local leaders, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop David Booth Beers, and leaders from Episcopal dioceses surrounding San Joaquin "are coming together very soon to finalize our coordinated efforts to provide for the leadership needs, the legal and pastoral issues, and the financial concerns of our brothers and sisters in San Joaquin, and to provide for the continuation of the diocese."

The Rev. Robert Moore will meet with the group as well. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori appointed Moore "to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin," said the Rev. Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.

Moore is the husband of Bishop Suffragan Bavi Edna "Nedi" Rivera of Olympia, the daughter of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield's predecessor, Bishop Victor Rivera.

"The Presiding Bishop wants the people of San Joaquin to be assured of her prayers and also of her support in the coming days," Robertson said.

Delegates attending San Joaquin's 48th Convention on December 8 overwhelmingly voted to leave the Episcopal Church and align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Robertson said that, while the action in San Joaquin is unprecedented, "so is the support and love that is rising up in the Episcopal Church."

At the same time, San Joaquin's canon to the ordinary says parishes in the diocese can go through a "period of discernment" to "determine whether or not they are comfortable with the decisions made by their delegates." If a parish-wide vote shows members are not in agreement, the parish may "appeal to the bishop for release," the Rev. Canon William Gandenberger told ENS.

Speaking from diocesan offices in Fresno, California, where phones are being answered with the greeting "Anglican Church offices," Gandenberger said he did not know how much time parishes have to discern their future, and added that mission congregations cannot participate in such a process.

Glass and another person who requested not to be identified told ENS that Schofield threatened the personal livelihoods and congregational finances of priests who opposed his efforts to lead the diocese out of the Episcopal Church.

The unnamed person said Schofield told him during a break in the convention that diocesan support of his mission congregation will stop at the end of December because he abstained in the December 8 vote. Glass confirmed Schofield's threat. The warning came, the person said, despite the fact that money was earmarked in the 2008 diocesan budget for support of the congregation.

The person said both Schofield and Gandenberger told him and another congregational leader a month ago that diocesan support might cease, since any funds in the diocesan budget for mission would have to go towards Schofield's legal defense.

Asked whether such a threat had been made, Gandenberger replied, "absolutely not."

Gandenberger said aid to all missions that asked for diocesan support in 2008 was included in the budget approved December 8 and that the leadership would "absolutely not" amend the budget to use that money elsewhere.

Glass said Schofield told the convention that $1.6 million has already been set aside for legal and other costs involved in their departure. He and others are worried, he added, that Schofield and his supporters will "sell down assets that no longer belong to them to pay their legal fees." Glass' clients will "strenuously object" and seek help from secular courts, he said.

Gandenberger denied that Schofield would sell property to raise funds for legal fees. "The bishop is loathe to close any churches" and has never closed a congregation for any reason other than "the local congregation's inability to maintain itself financially," he said. Even then, closures happen "with regret," Gandenberger added.

Describing the discernment process envisioned for parishes, Gandenberger said any parish that has no outstanding debt would be told to "go with God." Parishes that have received loans from the diocese must satisfy their debt, and those for which the diocese was a co-signer of a loan must find another co-signer before they can leave, he said.

Parishes that decide to remain in the Episcopal Church, even if their convention delegates supported Schofield, must make their choice known, "otherwise the bishop might consider them to be a part of this historic vote."

Mission congregations of the diocese do not have the same option, Gandenberger said. "They are not free to move in the same way a parish would be," he said.

Meanwhile, Glass said his clients are withholding their diocesan assessments, expected to total $200,000 annually, because they are concerned about paying money to people who are no longer part of the diocese or the Episcopal Church.

Glass told ENS that he and the vestry of St. Matthew's Parish in San Andreas have so far successfully opposed Schofield's efforts to move the parish into mission status. Schofield, he said, attempted to have their rector fired and then wanted to change the congregation's status because they did not have a rector. Glass said a vestry member showed the Diocesan Council that canonical processes had not been followed and the council tabled the plan.

Gandenberger said Schofield has assured priests who disagree with his leadership that he will "do all in his power to assist them in finding other episcopal oversight."

"We're trying to demonstrate the graciousness that all churches should show," he said, characterizing the leadership's stance "as opposed to what we have seen coming from the leadership of the Episcopal Church."

During an exchange of letters prior to convention, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori advised Schofield that approval of constitutional changes to remove all references to the Episcopal Church would "implicitly reject the Church's property and other canons."

Regarding the diocese's intention to affiliate with the Southern Cone, she said: "If you continue along this path…it will be necessary to ascertain whether you have in fact abandoned the communion of this church, and violated your own vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church."

If Schofield is judged to have abandoned the communion of the church, he will have two months to recant his position. If he does not recant, the matter will be referred to the full House of Bishops. If the House concurs, the Presiding Bishop will depose him.

It is expected that lawsuits will be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempt to retain Episcopal Church property.

Clergy and lay delegates were pressured to reveal their stance on the issues during the convention at St. James Cathedral in Fresno. Certificates from the Province of the Southern Cone awaited each priest at the conclusion of the convention, declaring them to be clergy in good standing in that province. Schofield told the convention that failure to take possession of a certificate meant a priest would be "deemed to be in a period of discernment as to whether or not you would be staying in the diocese," Glass said.

Glass said he had not seen a certificate because none of his clients took theirs. It is unclear, Glass said, how such discernment processes would end and what process would be used to declare priests not in good standing.

Gandenberger said the period of discernment was not connected to whether priests claimed their Southern Cone certificates, which he said were simply "made available" to clergy.

The person who communicated anonymously with ENS said that during a December 7 convention session, Schofield declared out of order an attempt to allow voting on December 8 to be conducted by secret ballot. Thus, delegates were required to stand to indicate their approval, disapproval, or abstention from voting on the proposed constitutional changes and the realignment.

Glass said that a number of priests voted to approve the changes Schofield wanted "out of fear for themselves, their families and the people under their care." Both Glass and the person who contacted ENS said that they knew of priests who now openly renounce their support for Schofield's plans and express "regret for what they did.". . .

Read it all.

ECUSA could spend over $1 million in legal fees in 2007

I'm not exactly sure where these numbers are coming from since the article doesn't say, so with that caveat, check out VirtueOnline [boldface mine]:

The National Church headquarters of The Episcopal Church is on a legal spending binge as dioceses and parishes exit the denomination.

Figures, VirtueOnline has received, reveal that prior to 2005 there did not appear to be any major expenditures on legal fees until after Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new Presiding Bishop, took office. . .

In 2005 there was a line item for "Title IV investigations, trial and legal." The amount budgeted was $8333 a month, or $100,000 a year. The actual amount spent was $453,014 or $353,014 over budget.

In 2006, the same line item appeared with the same amount budgeted ($100,000/year) with the actual amount spent being $635,636 or $535,636 over budget.

In other words, for the years 2005 and 2006, some $200,000 was budgeted for "Title IV investigations, trial and legal." In point of fact, nearly $900,000 was actually spent. In addition, in 2006, some $430,648 was listed as being spent on legal fees.

There was no such line item for "Legal Assistance to Dioceses" in 2005 and it didn't appear until Oct. 2006 (Just after Jefferts Schori's election as Presiding Bishop).

In Oct. 2006, expenses for that item were $204,988. In Nov 2006, expenses for that item were $0. In Dec. 2006, expenses for that item were $238,531.

Combined, the total spent on legal fees was $443,519 (almost half a million dollars in three months). . .

In 2007, "Title IV, investigations, trials and legal," was still listed but the budgeted amount had been increased from $8,333.00 a month to $25,000 per month, a 300% increase!

In addition, listed under the Title IV item was another line item titled, "Property Protection for Missions - Legal costs." It is budgeted for $41,667 a month, or $500,000 for the fiscal year 2007.

If the two line items are for different operations, $300,000 has been budgeted for "Title VI, investigations, trials and legal." This is a 300% increase over last year alone.

If the new line item "Property Protection for Missions - Legal costs" is intended to fund legal costs for lawsuits, etc., this would mean that the TEC has budgeted a total of nearly $800,000 for that purpose.

In 2007, the item name was changed to "Property Protection for Mission - Legal expenses." The following charges were recorded:

2007 YTD (Oct. 2007) $470,521 2006 (total) $443,519

Total from Oct. 2006 - Oct. 2007 was $914,040 or an average of $76,170 dollars a month average on legal costs.

Monies spent on line item: "Title VI, investigations, trial and legal" is budgeted for another $25,000 a month. Together, both items are budgeted for a total of $76,000 a month.

By year's end that figure could swell to well over $1 million with major expenditures just in their infancy in Virginia.

Furthermore, this figure does not include additional costs TEC will incur from assuming mortgages from properties they might win. . .

Read it all.

Packed Advent Mass celebrated in Baghdad

From Amy Proctor's blog:

On this second week of Advent, more than 200 Iraqis attended Mass in Baghdad to celebrate the anticipation of Christ's birth with Iraq’s first cardinal and leader of the ancient Chaldean Church, Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly. The 2 hour Mass was broadcast live on Iraqi state television. The Cardinal said,

"We pray today for the sake of each other and to forgive each other, as well to be directed to do good deeds. That is my demand for the Iraqis, moreover I urge the return home for displaced people and immigrants to their ancestral land."

Jassim al-Jazairi. a Shiite imam of a nearby Shiite mosque shook hands with the Catholic Cardinal in the Church's courtyard after Mass and said,

"I came here to show the unity of the Iraqi people.". . .

Read it all.
H/t to Gateway Pundit.

AnglicanTV interview with Eric Sohlgren, attorney

Here's my interview with Eric Sohlgren, attorney with Payne & Fears LLP in Irvine, California, about the on-going litigation between the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and churches which have voted to leave the diocese, move under Anglican bishops, and retain their property. Mr. Sohlgren is the lead attorney for St. James Anglican in Newport Beach.

These cases have moved to the California Supreme Court, and in mid-November, the opening brief for St. James was filed. Here is the press release from Payne & Fears on the filing, and here is a copy of the opening brief itself.

AnglicanTV livestreams the Diocese of San Joaquin convention this weekend **STICKY up top for the weekend**

Kevin's traveling again! This time, he's at the diocesan convention in San Joaquin. Check it out!

This live stream is a ministry of AnglicanTV.org

I'm a runner: Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

From Runner's World:

. . . Is there any type of a race you'd really like to do someday ... a trail run, ultramarathon, a one-mile race, a relay?
I'm more of a distance person. If I had time to train for something like that, I'd probably run another marathon. But I just don't have time to train.

How do you feel running helps with your work? Do you like to use the time to brainstorm or solve issues?
Absolutely. It's focusing for me. In my tradition we might talk about it as body prayer. It's a meditative experience at its best. It's a sort of emptying of the mind. That's probably why I prefer running in the wilds rather than in the middle of the city.

Now that you've been elected presiding bishop, do you think your weekly runs will become more necessary or more fulfilling?
Well, it's an essential part of my health. I don't function as well in any part of my life if I'm not exercising regularly, and running is probably the easiest and most enjoyable way I've found to do that.

Did you run before or after your investiture?
Yes. I think I was staying in Washington, DC, and I ran up the hill to the cathedral several times.

Any particular reason?
It was a hill. Lovely view from up there, lovely sunrises.

The difference between running and delivering a sermon or leading a flock is ...
I might come at it in terms of similarities than in terms of differences. Similarities: there's some preparation, but most of the work happens when you're doing it. There's training to get ready, but most of the work and ministry happens in the middle of it. . .

Read it all.
H/t to the Running Priest.

Third Annual "Mere Anglicanism" Conference to be held in January

The third annual “MERE ANGLICANISM” conference will be held Thursday, January 31 through Saturday, February 2, 2008, at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul in Charleston, South Carolina.

From their website:

GOD’S TRUSTWORTHY WORD: SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD

The twenty-first century crisis in Anglicanism has arisen out of more than two hundred years of growing hermeneutical suspicion about the eternal trustworthiness of God’s Word Written. This crisis can be resolved only through a faithful re-claiming by the Church of such trust. Analysis and reflection around this issue will constitute the program of this coming year’s conference, led by a roster of internationally renowned speakers.

Dr. Jerry Root -- with a focus on C. S. Lewis
Bishop Robert Duncan – with a focus on developments in the Anglican Communion
Canon Robert Crouse – with a focus on sacramentalism in the Church Fathers and the English Reformers
Bishop (God willing) Mark Lawrence – with a focus on the life and leadership of Charles Henry Brent
Canon Ashley Null – with a focus on Thomas Cranmer for Today
Dr. Paul Moser – with a focus on Jesus as God’s Trustworthy Word
Canon Michael Green – with a focus on “marching orders” for Anglicanism in a New Reformation

Plenary panels and small group opportunities will be interspersed throughout the conference. Networking sessions and gatherings for theological educators and bloggers will be held. Major panelists, discussion leaders and liturgical participants will include Bishop FitzSimons Allison, William Dickson, Gavin Dunbar, Lydia Evans, Leander Harding, Bishop Jack Iker, Kendall Harmon, Gillis Harp, Ann Harrington, Michael Howell, Edith Humphrey, Matt Kennedy, Torrance Kirby, Guy Lytle, William McKeachie, Joe Murphy, Daniel Muth, George Woodliff III, and many other lay leaders, clergy and bishops.

Cost: $80 includes box lunch on Friday and Saturday
Register today at www.MereAnglicanism.com or call Kester Heaton at The Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul: 843-722-7345

CANA Council Meeting

Here are some links to the goings-on at the CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) council meeting this week (December 6-9).

• Bishop's Pastoral Call to the CANA Council by the Rt Rev'd Martyn Minns


• Meeting schedule


• "Ex-Episcopal splinter group expanding, official says" from the Examiner.com


• "Breakaway Anglicans Move Forward with Orthodox Initiative" from The Christian Post


• Prayers from the Anglican Communion Network


• Open letter by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria to fellow Anglican Primates

My AnglicanTV interview with Bishop Martyn Minns

Here's an interview I did for AnglicanTV with Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA when we were in the D.C. area over Thanksgiving.

Some areas that Bishop Minns discussed:

CANA, its structure, his role, and their vision
Common Cause
Funding and financial info about CANA
December CANA council meeting and consecrations
Anglican District of Virginia
Definition of Anglicanism
Thoughts on the Anglican Covenant
Role of the Archbishop of Canterbury
“Radical inclusion, profound transformation, inspired service”
Five Talents Ministry
Final thoughts

Bishop Minns was unable to discuss anything about the diocesan lawsuits as that litigation is still ongoing.

Bishop Schofield responds to the Presiding Bishop

From Stand Firm [boldface mine]:

Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our one and only Lord and Savior.

I have read your letter of December 3, 2007 and thank you for your prayers. There is a pastoral tone to this letter which is much appreciated. Informing me that you are not writing with any threats is most encouraging also. One would hope that this indicates your serious consideration of the Primates’ specific request that deposition and litigation under the present circumstances be abandoned as unacceptable behavior among Christians.

Please know I do not share your feelings that I am isolated. My understanding of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, as well as Catholic Faith and Order are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide. It is The Episcopal Church that has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order.

It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. After this length of time, one wonders how genuine the offer of change for the Church can be by having the "loyal opposition" present at the table. Despite all of this, we are not pining away here in the Diocese of San Joaquin; we are rejoicing in the truth of God’s word!

The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture.

For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith. Hopes were raised in February 2007 when leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam. The direction given by them for the formation of a pastoral council would have provided the protection we requested and would have averted the need for the Diocese to seek sanctuary from another Province. You were in Dar es Salaam, and in the presence of the assembled Primates you verbally signified your agreement to this direction. By the time you returned to the United States, however, you denied your public statement and declared you had only meant to bring it back for further consideration. It was no surprise, therefore, when the Executive Council and the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church later denounced the plan for a pastoral council that you went along with them. This was a clear signal that our religious freedom to practice the Historic Faith as this Church has received it would not be protected by The Episcopal Church. My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations..." I can do no other.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight. To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. Should it be the will of the Annual Convention to accept this most generous gift, I will welcome the opportunity implied in your letter to discuss how it impacts our relationship. In the event that the clergy and laity reject this offer from the Southern Cone, I would, of course, follow your recommendation to participate as a dissenter of the present unbiblical course of action being pursued by the House of Bishops. To do anything else would be to abandon God’s people of San Joaquin and, in the end, prove to be a hireling and not a shepherd. For me, at least, this is the honorable course the Lord would have me follow.

You will remain in my prayers,

Sincerely,

+John-David M. Schofield
Bishop of San Joaquin

Penn State launches study of Episcopal blogs

From the Episcopal Majority:

We have recently received a request from Niyati Kataria, a graduate student at Penn State, to participate in a study of the blogs that are engaging the issues in the Episcopal Church. We have agreed to cooperate with her, and some of the TEM Board members have given her extensive phone interviews.

She will be studying the content of our blog essays and comments. At her request, we are also publishing this announcement to all of you.

We're not feeling like lab rats. And we have confidence that the student and the university are taking appropriate measures to assure confidentiality. But Ms. Kataria and Penn State require that we post the following on our blog during the period of her research. . .

I've also seen this on Fr. Jake's blog, and there may be others out there.

I'm not an academic so I could be totally off base, but it seems to me that as soon as you announce you are conducting a study, you've changed what you are studying. The researcher states on Fr. Jake's:

I would like to use data in the form of your blog posts and comments (posted from October 2004 to the most current entry) on this blog site for my research.

And on Episcopal Majority:

I would like to use data in the form of your blog posts (posted from August 2006 to date) on this blog site for my research.

That's unclear to me whether she is just looking at past posts and comments or whether she will be looking at current postings. I would think any postings or comments from now on out on those blogs that are being studied would not be included, but I could be wrong. Fr. Jake says [boldface mine]:

I had the opportunity to talk with Niyati for about an hour the other day. She is a delightful young lady, so everyone relax and be yourselves. If being quoted makes you nervous, I'd suggest you choose some new catchy nickname. Something with "eccentric" or "heretic" in it would seem appropriate.

That implies to me that he thinks she will be looking at current comments, so I'm not sure. Anyway, it should be interesting.

Candidates invited for Director of Mission position

EpiscopalLife Online has the following job posting (anyone interested?) [boldface mine]:

Resumes are now invited for the position of Director of Mission for the Episcopal Church.

According to the posting, the Director of Mission, a senior position in the Domestic and Foreign Mission Society (DFMS), "will lead and oversee the staff in designing and carrying out Church mission programs based upon General Convention directives." Additionally, "the Director is responsible for the effective implementation of the mission priorities of the Episcopal Church."

The complete posting, including requirements and position details, is available here.
The Director, based at the Church Center in New York City, will be responsible for "articulating the vision of the Church in response to mission priorities, advising the Presiding Bishop, and providing leadership and oversight to the staff of the Office for Mission."

The Director is a member of the Presiding Bishop's Executive Oversight Group.

Deadline to submit resumes and related materials is Thursday, January 31, 2008.

Read it all.

Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Bishop Schofield [Updated]

UPDATE: Be sure and check out Christopher Johnson's fisking of this letter over at the Midwest Conservative Journal.

From EpiscopalLife Online, the text of the letter from the Presiding Bishop to Bishop Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin [boldface mine]:

December 3, 2007

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield
Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 East Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-5227

Dear John-David,

As you approach your next Diocesan Convention, I would like to remind you of my prayers, and those of many other Episcopalians, for you and for the Diocese of San Joaquin. I continue to be concerned for your health, and for your evident sense of isolation. You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent. While there are a number who disagree with you, I believe many more would welcome your participation, particularly as a sign of your faithfulness to your vow to share in the councils of the Church. The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation.

I do not need to remind you as well of the potential consequences of the direction in which you appear to be leading the Diocese of San Joaquin. In this connection I have in mind, among other things, your support of amendments to that diocese's Constitution that would be plainly inconsistent with the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and that would implicitly reject the Church's property and other canons, as well as your support for the transfer of the membership of your Diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. If you continue along this path, I believe it will be necessary to ascertain whether you have in fact abandoned the communion of this Church, and violated your vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church. I do not intend to threaten you, only to urge you to reconsider and draw back from this trajectory.

While you may believe that the Diocese of San Joaquin can be welcomed into another Province of the Anglican Communion, I believe you will find that few parts of the Communion will recognize such a proposal. Such an action is without precedent, violates long-standing principles of catholic Christianity, and can only harm those faithful Episcopalians who only seek to follow Christ. I urge you to consider whether there might not be a more honorable course for you, personally, than seeking to violate your ordination vows and the Canons of this Church. Together with many in this Church, I would very much value your continued and increased presence at the table – both the table of Jesus Christ and the table of fellowship.

You and the Diocese of San Joaquin continue in my prayers, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

San Joaquin bishop asked to 'reconsider, draw back' from withdrawal efforts

From EpiscopalLife Online:

Expressing concern for his health and "evident sense of isolation," Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori urged Bishop John-David M. Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin to "reconsider and draw back" from efforts to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church.

As with previous letters to other disaffected bishops, the correspondence with Schofield notified him that such a step would force Jefferts Schori to act to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.

"You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent," Jefferts Schori wrote. "…The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation."

The first of the letters was sent to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh on October 31. A second letter was sent to Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth on November 8.

San Joaquin's diocesan convention, meeting December 7-8, is set to consider second readings of four constitutional changes that implicitly reject property and other canons of General Convention.

Schofield, who was traveling at the time the letter was sent, has not yet issued a response, according to the Rev. William Gandenberger, Canon to the Ordinary in the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Schofield has indicated his support and approval of the changes, as well as for an unprecedented transfer of the diocese to the authority of the Primate of the Southern Cone, Gregory Venables. The Diocese of San Joaquin announced November 16 that the Province of the Southern Cone had extended an invitation to "those dioceses of the Episcopal Church taking appropriate action to separate" to join the South American province "on an emergency and pastoral basis" until the Episcopal Church "repents and adheres to the theological, moral and pastoral norms of the Anglican Communion, and when effective and acceptable alternative primatial oversight becomes available.". . .

If the Presiding Bishop presented materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by those bishops, and if the Committee agreed that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Appointed to the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (president), Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio. . .

Read it all.

Jeffrey Steenson received into the Catholic Church

From the blog Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall:

Former Episcopal bishop [of Diocese of the Rio Grande] Jeffrey Steenson was received into the Catholic Church this weekend in Rome at the Basilica of St. Mary Major.

A hearty congratulations to him as he was instrumental in my own journey into the full communion with Christ and His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI.

Sunday night proverb

The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Proverbs 10:8

Sunday school for atheists

From Time:

On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?

Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.

An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. "It's important for kids not to look weird," says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.

The pioneering Palo Alto program began three years ago, and like-minded communities in Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., plan to start similar classes next spring. The growing movement of institutions for kids in atheist families also includes Camp Quest, a group of sleep-away summer camps in five states plus Ontario, and the Carl Sagan Academy in Tampa, Fla., the country's first Humanism-influenced public charter school, which opened with 55 kids in the fall of 2005. . .

Atheist parents appreciate this nurturing environment. That's why Kitty, a nonbeliever who didn't want her last name used to protect her kids' privacy, brings them to Bishop's class each week. After Jonathan, 13, and Hana, 11, were born, Kitty says she felt socially isolated and even tried taking them to church. But they're all much more comfortable having rational discussions at the Humanist center. "I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," Hana says. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."

Read it all.