THE MCJ

NOW THE BAD NEWS

If ECUSA consecrates another homosexual bishop or New Westminster continues to allow same-sex marriage, there will be heck to pay:

In terms of the wider Communion, and our wider relationships with a number of key ecumenical partners, the consecration has had very prejudicial consequences. In our view, those involved did not pay due regard, in the way they might and, in our view, should have done, to the wider implications of the decisions they were making and the actions they were taking. We believe that there is an important lesson here, which has implications for the process of appointment and election throughout the whole Communion.

In our view, all those involved in the processes of episcopal appointment, at whichever level, should in future in the light of all that has happened pay proper regard to the acceptability of the candidate to other provinces in our Communion; the issue should be addressed by those locally concerned at the earliest stages, by those provincially involved in the confirmation of any election, and not least by those who, acting on those decisions, consecrate the individual into the order of bishop. The question of acceptability could be posed in a number of ways. Is there any reason to expect that the appointment or election of a particular candidate might prejudice our relations with other provinces? Would the ministry of this individual be recognised and received if he or she were to visit another province? Would the individual be 'translatable'?

Let me get this straight.  ECUSA knew full well that the Robinson consecration would rip the Anglican Communion apart.  Frank Griswold was told that by the other primates and even put his name to a statement to that effect.  ECUSA went ahead anyway.  ECUSA shouldn't do that anymore or...my gracious lord of Canterbury may have to appoint another commission.  In the meantime, Dr. Williams better not invite Robbie to any Anglican gatherings.  Just yet:

We accept and respect the position taken up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the current incumbent of the See of New Hampshire. In view of the widespread unacceptability of his ministry in other provinces of the Communion, we urge the proposed Council of Advice to keep the matter of his acceptability under close review. We also urge the Archbishop, unless and until the Council of Advice (or, if the Council should not come into being, the Primates' Meeting) indicate to the contrary, to exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion.

ECUSA should say it's sorry:

the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion

Yup.  ECUSA doesn't have to say it's sorry for doing something the Lambeth Commission said that no Anglican church should have done.  All ECUSA has to do is to say that it's sorry that everyone else got so worked up about it doing what the Lambeth Commission says it shouldn't have done, even though it knew the consequences.  Because that'll mean that ECUSA still wants to remain Anglican.  And those bishops who participated in Robinson's consecration ought to go to their rooms and think about what they did:

pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions

Gee.  Wonder how that will turn out?  And ECUSA shouldn't do any more of what it never should have done in the first place:

the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.

Astonishingly, the Commission recommends that Anglicans need to yammer some more:

Finally, we recommend that the Instruments of Unity, through the Joint Standing Committee, find practical ways in which the 'listening' process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, so that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender relationships.

And it'd be really nifty if the Episcopal Church could provide the Anglican world with a reason why Gene Robinson should get a pointy hat that has a smidge more substance than, "Well, it just felt right, ya know?"

We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ. As we see it, such a reasoned response, following up the work of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA), and taken with recent work undertaken by the Church of England and other provinces of the Communion, will have an important contribution to make to the ongoing discussion.

If it's not too much trouble, ECUSA needs to hold off on any more controversial actions or...not much of anything will happen:

While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.

Oh, and did we mention all the yammering we need to do?

We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion. One of the deepest realities that the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships.

Even though the two positions are irreconcilable:

Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. The later sections of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 cannot be ignored any more than the first section, as the primates have noted.

Since this is homosexuals we're talking about, we've got to include this bit:

Moreover, any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care. We urge provinces to be pro-active in support of the call of Lambeth Resolution 64 (1988) for them to “reassess, in the light of study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude toward persons of homosexual orientation”.

The Commission realizes that there are lots of conservative Anglicans out there who refuse to accept the ECUSA and New Westminster apostasies:

The Commission has been made aware of the hurt and alienation felt by individual Anglicans, parishes and dioceses as a result of decisions made and actions taken by autonomous provinces within which there is profound disagreement. In some cases, there is a long history of suspicion and division over a range of issues, and the concern over homosexuality has merely provided the focus for reaction on the part of Anglican Christians whose motivation is to be faithful to Christian truth and values as they have understood them. But in all cases, this is a situation which cries out for healing and reconciliation.

With someone who professes an entirely different religion than you do, apparently.  And let's not have any more unauthorized bishopping, okay?

In some instances, this breach of trust has been felt so keenly that a parish or diocese has found itself unwilling to accept the ministry of a bishop associated with such contrary action, and has invited bishops from elsewhere in the province or beyond to provide pastoral and sacramental oversight. In some cases, there are primates and bishops who have acceded to these requests with or without reference to the proper authorities of the diocese concerned. We want to make quite clear that we fully understand the principled concerns that have led to those actions even though we believe that they should have been handled differently.

Because the ECUSA's convoluted, fradulent and totally temporary delegated episcopal pastoral oversight plan is just fine by us:

During this period it would be axiomatic that the incumbent bishop would delegate some of his or her functions, rights and responsibilities to the incoming bishop. In this regard, we commend the proposals for delegated episcopal pastoral oversight set out by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) in 2004. We believe that these proposals are entirely reasonable, if they are approached and implemented reasonably by everyone concerned.

Chortle

We particularly commend the appeal structures set out in the House of Bishops policy statement, and consider that these provide a very significant degree of security. We see no reason why such delegated pastoral and sacramental oversight should not be provided by retired bishops from within the province in question, and recommend that a province making provision in this manner should maintain a list of bishops who would be suitable and acceptable to undertake such a ministry. In principle, we see no difficulty in bishops from other provinces of the Communion becoming involved with the life of particular parishes under the terms of these arrangements in appropriate cases.

So those bishops guilty of the grievous sin of unauthorized bishopping need:

to express regret for the consequences of their actions
to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.

American conservative bishops better get on board too:

We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church.

Gee, ya think?  But after all, we are Anglicans.  We don't want winners and losers here:

We call upon all parties to the current dispute to seek ways of reconciliation, and to heal our divisions. We have already indicated (paragraphs 134 and 144) some ways in which the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster could begin to speak with the Communion in a way which would foster reconciliation. We have appealed to those intervening in provinces and dioceses similarly to act with renewed respect. We would expect all provinces to respond with generosity and charity to any such actions. It may well be that there need to be formal discussions about the path to reconciliation, and a symbolic Act of Reconciliation, which would mark a new beginning for the Communion, and a common commitment to proclaim the Gospel of Christ to a broken and needy world.

Four in one paragraph.  Not bad.  Oh and please hold off on homosexual bishops and same-sex marriages, ECUSA and New Westminster.  If you don't, we might have to make a hard decision and nobody, least of all us, wants that:

There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, “to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross”, and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died.

To sum up: both ECUSA and New Westminster need to say they're sorry for taking actions that the rest of the Anglican world told them would tear the Anglican world apart and that they took anyway.  They don't have to apologize for the actions themselves, merely for the fact that their actions "hurt" the rest of the Anglican world.  For all practical purposes, ECUSA and New Westminster get to tell the Anglican world that they're really, really sorry the rest of the Anglican world are homophobic bigots. 

The Commission wants American conservatives to stop being so assertive and to cooperate with people that they think are apostates.  And the Commission would really, really, really like it if both ECUSA and New Westminster would stop consecrating homosexual bishops and/or permitting same-sex marriages. 

If they don't, something bad might happen down the road somewhere.  The Commission doesn't know what that something might be but thinks it could be really unpleasant and bad and stuff.  In the meantime, the Commission hopes like all get out that the two irreconcilable, mutually-exclusive positions current in the Anglican world can somehow find common ground. 

I can honestly say that my contempt for the Anglican Communion has never been(and probably can't get any) higher.  Much more to come.

Posted on 10/18/2004 5:54:09 PM , 31 comments