March 17
For Immediate Release
A Statement by Bishop Robert Duncan on the ECUSA House of Bishops Meeting
I write with sincere gratitude for all those who prayed for the recent House of Bishops meeting and for those who have taken the trouble to write me notes of appreciation and support in this time of immense stress and challenge.
I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.
I believe the real news from this meeting of the House of Bishops is that we have finally begun to be honest about what we did at General Convention 2003 and what the consequences are. Moreover, we began openly to engage the thought that our differences within the House of Bishops, within the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), and within the Anglican Communion may be irreconcilable. In particular, we examined the complete breakdown of trust among some groups within the House and perceptions of abuses of power on the one hand and unhelpful tactics on the other, which have brought us to the breaking point.
The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) remains resolute in its commitment to full compliance with the Primates expectations as outlined in their communiqué as well as to the historic Christian faith and order as concerns human identity and holy matrimony under the word of God written as the ultimate rule and standard. We are also seeking to work as closely and collaboratively as possible with other Episcopal Church leaders to find a way forward that will fully address the depth of the crisis we face while seeking to honor the consciences and concerns of all in the body of Christ.
March 17, 2005
March 17, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A Statement from the President of the American Anglican Council on Communications Issued by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops
The Covenant Statement and the Word to the Church issued by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops is insulting to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. While it aims at specific requests of the 2004 Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué, it fails to fulfill clear expectations outlined therein. The House claimed to affirm the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1888, and yet they failed to repent of their decisions and subsequent actions contrary to Scripture as well as Anglican faith and order. Note there is no affirmation of the authority of Scripture or Lambeth 1.10, which were upheld by the primates. Are there not two mutually exclusive views presented in this covenant?
Bishops also declared a moratorium on blessings of same-sex unions, but J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, violated the spirit of this pledge before the sun set on the covenant's passage. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times Tuesday evening, he said he would 'not impose his 'conscience' on priests in the six-county Los Angeles diocese. They are free to bless same sex unions if they wish,' he said. The Episcopal News Service clearly underscored the loophole in their report as well: 'the bishops said they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.'
How can faithful Episcopalians view such doublespeak from Episcopal leaders as anything but duplicitous?
With regard to the so-called moratorium on consecrations, I am outraged that the House of Bishops drew equivalence between single or married individuals with those living in homosexual partnerships. To place a moratorium on all consecrations not only takes the episcopacy hostage to the homosexual agenda but also places several dioceses in crisis. Canon law requires that bishops must retire at age 72 -- what happens in those dioceses where their bishop faces mandatory retirement? William Persell, Bishop of Chicago, has said that he and others are more than willing to pitch in and help run those dioceses. In other words, revisionist bishops will be placed in dioceses rather than individuals duly elected by diocesan convention. This is an appalling idea that represents a great threat to biblically faithful dioceses and congregations. Although orthodox bishops in attendance generally supported the covenant statement believing it had useful components in it, I disagree and believe they made a clear error.
Finally, I am struck by the conciliatory nature and carefully nuanced phraseology of the Word to the Church that belies the attack of the Presiding Bishop on an orthodox bishop as well as several faithful clergy and lay people. His actions are deplorable and inexcusable. I call upon him to issue a public apology.
In summation, the House of Bishops claims a desire to remain part of the world-wide communion but seems not to understand what that entails. The Covenant fails to offer long-term, sustainable solutions and at best simply postpones inevitable conversation about the clear and ultimate choice before us -- walking together or walking apart. I am thankful for the bishops who upheld orthodoxy and worked in good faith to voice the irreconcilable differences that mark the House of Bishops. I urge all bishops to make their choice and to be honest in articulating those choices. The mandate of the primates is before us all: Choose this day whom you shall serve.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=887
Bishops' Support of Covenant Statement Not Unanimous
03/17/2005
While only a handful of the approximately 140 bishops attending the House of Bishops spring meeting voted against the covenant statement on March 15, neither traditional-minded nor progressive bishops were united behind the document, and a significant portion of conservative bishops missed the vote.
The total number of 'nays' is uncertain. One bishop present told THE LIVING CHURCH that 'there were four or five no's', while Bishop Paul V. Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, wrote after the vote, 'my own conscience did not permit me or eight other bishops to vote for it.'
Bishop James Kelsey of Northern Michigan voted against the covenant saying he opposed the moratorium as a 'misuse of power'. 'I feel it is a legislative restriction of the authentic discernment of diocesan communities,' he wrote in a letter to his diocese. 'I further feel this is an inappropriate use of the consent process. Bishops are asked to give consent as a kind of a check and balance, but not as a prime mover in the process. This feels to me like a unilateral action of the bishops, thereby excluding any options by the rest of the Church.'
Two diocesan bishops told the House on Saturday that no matter what was decided, nothing would deter the blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses.
Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times that though he would observe the moratorium against the blessing of same-sex unions, he would not impose the moratorium on his clergy nor discipline those who performed the rites -- a stance at odds with one conservative bishop's understanding of the moratorium, which he told THE LIVING CHURCH he believed extended to all clergy, not merely bishops.
Within the ranks of traditionalist bishops, interpretations over the meaning and effectiveness of the document differ widely. Immediately after the vote, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh told THE LIVING CHURCH that on 'one level we are buying time, and I guess that's good as it acknowledges all of the things the primates have been saying to us'.
In a formal statement released on March 17, Bishop Duncan wrote, 'I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.'
'I voted against [the covenant],' Suffragan Bishop David Bena of Albany wrote to his diocese, 'because I believe it is too weak and possibly duplicitous. Most of those present, however, did vote for it as the best we could do under the circumstances.'
Bishop Bena was 'cautiously optimistic' however, 'because I saw how hard both the left and the right worked together to tailor something that actually answered the demands of Windsor and the [primates'] communiqué.'
One of the principals of the working group that created the covenant, Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, stated, 'It was an excellent meeting of the House. Bishops on all sides of the current questions in the life of our church worked diligently to find a creative response to the primates' communiqué.'
Also present for the meeting were Anglican Communion Network Bishops James Adams of Western Kansas, John W. Howe of Central Florida, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, and William Skilton of South Carolina (suffragan), and newly consecrated Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Rio Grande.
A number of bishops affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network were not present at the vote. Bishop Daniel Herzog of Albany was abroad, a guest of the diocese of Down and Dromore in Northern Ireland, preaching on St Patrick's Day at Downpatrick --the sight of St. Patrick's grave.
Suffragan Bishop Henry Scriven of Pittsburgh had left Camp Allen by Tuesday's vote, as had Bishop James M. Stanton of Dallas. Bishop Stanton attended the first two days of the meeting, but returned to Dallas to be present at the birth of his granddaughter.
American Anglican Council chairman and Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith took ill in Atlanta while on his way to the meeting and did not attend. Others who did not attend: Bishop Terry Kelshaw of the Rio Grande, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.
No comments:
Post a Comment