KatherineSUSPENSION
From the Anglican Communion Primates meeting:
We then proceeded to our own reflections on these responses. There are a number of things which are quite clear. Many primates have been deeply alarmed that the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communion, has been seriously undermined by the recent developments in North America. At the same time, it is acknowledged that these developments within the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have proceeded entirely in accordance with their constitutional processes and requirements (vi). We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship (vii).
We as a body continue to address the situations which have arisen in North America with the utmost seriousness. Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered.
We are persuaded however that in order for the recommendations of the Windsor Report to be properly addressed, time needs to be given to the Episcopal Church (USA) and to the Anglican Church of Canada for consideration of these recommendations according to their constitutional processes.
Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion.
In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003 (xii). Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.
I expected this result. Frank Griswold and Andrew Hutchison both pleaded "polity" and both were asked to remove their churches from Anglican affairs until their respective polities resolved the matter. Anglican teaching on sexuality is reaffirmed, even emphasized("Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered.").
And I found the language on episcopal boundary-crossing to be particularly interesting. The primates say that they will neither encourage nor initiate "cross-boundary interventions." They do not say that they will turn down parochial oversight if it is requested. And the appointment by Dr. Williams of a panel "to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003," appears at first glance to badly undercut ECUSA's delegated episcopal pastoral oversight(DEPO) plan. The Anglican Mission in America cannot help but be encouraged.
An unanswered question is the status of the Anglican Communion Network. Although the Network approves of the primatial statement:
We are thankful for the work of the Primates of the Anglican Communion in addressing the complicated issues before them this week. This is a pivotal moment in Anglican history in which Biblical faithfulness has been reaffirmed. At last a clear and unequivocal choice has been presented to the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Being asked voluntarily to withdraw, the two provinces have been effectively suspended from the Communion until at least July 2008 in order to consider their place within that body. They must choose between repentance marked by compliance with the Windsor Report or continued theological innovations that separate them from the teaching and life of the Anglican Communion. We applaud the pastoral sensitivity with which the Primates have addressed the concerns of those who feel betrayed by their church leadership as well as those of homosexual orientation.
One wonders whether, since ECUSA is effectively suspended from Anglican affairs until 2008, the Network dioceses, since they are still officially connected with ECUSA, are suspended as well. I suppose that will emerge later.
While this might not be everything western conservatives would have wanted, I see very little encouragement here for the Anglican left. Dr. Williams has a historic title but that's all he has; once again, the conservative churches of the Third World have forcefully shown the world where the real power in Anglicanism lies. As the BBC put it, using one of the better lines to emerge in a while, "One observer said: 'The primates have handed the North Americans a pearl-handled revolver.'"
I thought this story would begin to wind down soon. But it may well be that the most interesting part of it is still ahead.
Submitted by J. Scott
at 2/25/2005 1:54:22 AM| Does suspension of ECUSA by the AC give conservative Piskie parishes an opportunity to secede from the Egregious Cult and take their land and buildings with them? |
Submitted by cpk
at 2/25/2005 4:50:09 AM| J. Scott -- Actually, kicking ECUSA out of the AC makes it *less* likely conservative parishes get to keep their buildings, not more. (IIRC, all the real estate is owned by DFMS--and DFMS answers to the GC, but I could have this seriously wrong.) |
Submitted by jude+
at 2/25/2005 6:26:51 AM| "We assure homosexual people that they are children of God..." Biblical assurance comes only this way: John 1:12 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God..." |
Submitted by Ken
at 2/25/2005 7:18:59 AM| cpk -
Deeds vary in various places. The relevant fact is that the "Dennis Canon" of ECUSA claims that all property is held in trust for the diocese and national church. The exact ramifications of that are being worked out in the courts. The constitution of the national church defines ECUSA partly in terms of it's membership in the Anglican Communion. According to one line of thought, if ECUSA is not part of the AC, it's constitution and canons (including the Dennis Canon) are null; ownership then clearly belongs to those holding the deeds. I'm not saying this is true. Again, that is to be worked out in the courts, more than likely. |
Submitted by Uh Clint
at 2/25/2005 8:16:30 AM| OK, so Frank was told that ECUSA hasn't played nice, and has to have a voluntary time-out. How does that change anything? Let's put this in behavioral terms. Little Bobbie has been pulling dogs' tails, and he keeps doing it even after his mother tells him not to and he promises not to. He goes right back to pulling tails, and then his grandmother says "Bobbie, I want you to go sit in the corner, if you want to, and think about how naughty you've been." If you're Bobbie, would you feel thwarted? I'm not saying that expulsion of ECUSA from the AC would be an instant cure or is the ideal solution. We're dealing with sin and sinners, and that makes for a very complex scenario which only divine judgement can adequately address. But this action by the Primates seems like just another "line in the sand", one of the thousands that stretch back miles along the beach so far that the orthodox roots of ECUSA are long out of sight. In order to get a response from ECUSA, action is needed, much like taking away Bobbie's GameStation for a month is more likely to generate a response than repeated, toothless warnings. Look at it this way - 20 years worth of words have only exacerbated the situation; why is there so much resistance (even from folks on the conservative side of the aisle) to taking decisive action? After all, heresy IS worse than schism. You can be part of faithful independent parish and not put your soul in jeopardy from false teachings, but the converse is NOT true. |
Submitted by dilys
at 2/25/2005 8:55:32 AM| I think this is as good as can be expected, and is really a strategic and canny response by wise and inspired Global South leaders. The way is being prepared for a split that is impersonal, robust, and defensible. MSM press stories are making it a bit clearer than I have seen in the blogosphere.
The metaphor is the addictive spendthrift child. Before cutting him off, a final opportunity to demonstrate cooperative behavior and a deadline is imposed. Under the radar is the admonition to "encourage" colleagues to comply. If Frank, or even Tutu, gets all Sufiesque, or "speaks truth to [orthodox] power," he is immedately renegade. Could he abstain? Doubtful. Not sure my blog post adds much (except the orthodox muzzling the discussion, mid-discussion). But I sure appreciated Chris' pearl-handled revolver find. http://goodandhappy.typepad.com/ |
Submitted by observer
at 2/25/2005 11:09:58 AM| Has it ever occured to anyone that the African Primates might PREFER to effect these holy limits without any power play whatsoever concerning church property. The dangers of Mammon are clear. The spiritual health of any new direction might be compromised if property, instead of Christ, is in focus. Methinks all this property talk raises red flags with the Primates. I don't think they ever seriously considered making a claim that the Network is the "real" ECUSA--so that traditionalist parishes might have better legal standing. These parishes are in a tough spot, admittedly, it seems many of them will compromise with sin "just for another 3 or 4 years" to supposedly increase the odds of staying put. Among other things, what I would like to see is whole dioceses promptly apply for this new international oversight. |
Submitted by SouthCoast
at 2/25/2005 12:08:12 PM| Still sounds suspiciously like 30 lashes with an intincted wafer to me... |
One question I do have. How is the enforcement of proper oversight to be managed? If the revisionists refuse, what is the ABC or the committee to do - suspend them? That's already been done. This is the weakest part that I see, but if ++Williams allows for "boundary crossing" in an effort to implement oversight, then no one will have a case to squawk.
Given that the entire purpose of the Windsor Report effort was to maintain the communion, I cannot see that this result is anything other than what we should have expected.This is about healing, restoration, and reconciliation (I hate that Frank has ruind that word!).
I agree, Chris. The weeks to come may become most interesting.