A Strong yet Painful No
Published on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:37 pm.
5 Comments.
Filed under Anglican Thoughts, In the News.
The House of Bishops has issued its response to the Primates’ Communiqué (see my most recent post on this, On It Rubbing Off, or my two more formal responses here and here).
The pre-meeting rumblings were that this meeting was not going to be for decisions. Rather, the goal was to talk about the issues and the Communiqué with an eye to responding at the next House of Bishops meeting.
Apparently they didn’t need that much time. I’m not sure whether that it good or bad in the long run, but I am extremely heartened (what a great word choice) by their response. You can read that response (which is comprised of a short set of resolutions, a short set of explanations and then a longer response) here (hat tip: Daily Episcopalian. However, allow me to highlight my impression of the key sections. I want to note, though, that the entire response is excellent and really should be read in its entirety.
We would therefore meet any decision to exclude us from gatherings of all Anglican Churches with great sorrow, but our commitment to our membership in the Anglican Communion as a way to participate in the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation would remain constant. We have no intention of choosing to withdraw from our commitments, our relationships, or our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion.
Since our General Convention of 2003, we have responded in good faith to the requests we have received from our Anglican partners. We accepted the invitation of the Lambeth Commission to send individuals characteristic of the theological breadth of our Church to meet with it. We happily did so. Our Executive Council voluntarily acceded to the request of the Primates for our delegates not to attend the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. We took our place as listeners rather than participants as an expression of our love and respect for the sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in the Communion even when we believed we had been misunderstood. We accepted the invitation of the Primates to explain ourselves in a presentation to the same meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. We did so with joy.
At the meeting of our House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Texas in March, 2004 we adopted a proposal called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight as a means for meeting the pastoral needs of those within our Church who disagreed with actions of the General Convention. Our plan received a favorable response in the Windsor Report. It was not accepted by the Primates. At our meeting in March 2005, we adopted a Covenant Statement as an interim response to the Windsor Report in an attempt to assure the rest of the Communion that we were taking them seriously and, at some significant cost, refused to consecrate any additional bishops whatsoever as a way that we could be true to our own convictions without running the risk of consecrating some that would offend our brothers and sisters. Our response was not accepted by the Primates. Our General Convention in 2006 struggled mightily and at great cost to many, not the least of whom are our gay and lesbian members, to respond favorably to the requests made of us in the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Dromantine Communiqué of 2005. We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships. Still, our efforts were not accepted by the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.
Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention.
Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.
In anticipation of the traditional renewal of ordination vows in Holy Week we solemnly declare that “we do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and we do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (Book of Common Prayer, page 513)
With this affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion, we find new hope that we can turn our attention to the essence of Christ’s own mission in the world, to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18-19). It is to that mission that we now determinedly turn.
The response notes the problems of the Communiqué with regards to our polity (and makes the ever important point that this is a theological question). It also, thankfully, notes the distressing absence of any word against the violence and oppression of GLBT persons around the world (with a nod of the proverbial head towards the Nigerian legislation, I’d imagine).
I’m reminded of the words of Jesus, also the title of one of +++John Paul II’s books on episcopal ministry, “Rise, let us be on our way.”
My read on this? We love and have great concern for our brothers and sisters throughout the communion. We have tried our hardest in good faith to respond to their concerns. Our responses have not been accepted and, rather, have been responded to with an ultimatum that would compromise the very nature of our church. Putting this thing on the backs of our GLBT brothers and sisters, returning to colonialism and giving up on the difficult nature of relationships is anathema to us. So, with tears for the pain it might cause, but confidence in our call to live out God’s mission in the church, we will continue the ministry of Jesus with or (painfully) without you.
Let’s see how this thing gets thrown around the blogosphere over the next couple days.
I don’t know about you, but I’m curious to see how Lambeth will respond. Will our bishops get the meeting they so earnestly desire?
Gillian Barr on 20 Mar 2007 at 10:09 pm: 1
Finally, some Camp Allen bishops I can get behind!
The HoB’s statements are wonderful, and a pleasant surprise.
Jeffrey on 21 Mar 2007 at 8:18 am: 2
I am utterly astonished by the clarity, firmness, and true Christian charity in the response by the House of Bishops not only to the comminique ultimatum but to the ongoing attacks on the Episcopal Church by our supposed overseas Anglican brothers (males only girls need not apply…)
I’ve read the responses through twice, and our bishops have made be proud to be an Episcoplian.
Jared Cramer on 21 Mar 2007 at 9:44 am: 3
Apparently the 5 or 6 strong Network bishops were not participating in this meeting as much as is customary. That may explain the clarity of the mind of the House of Bishops in these responses.
Jenna G. on 22 Mar 2007 at 7:26 pm: 4
Thanks for keeping up with all of this! I’ve been totally distracted lately, but that’s for a really good reason. :^)
Jared Cramer on 23 Mar 2007 at 9:14 am: 5
Just a small note, my comment about the Network bishops above was something I had heard, but had not verified. Canon Harmon says that it is just a rumor.