Anglican Church Sets Deadline on Gay Unions: U.S. Church must stop blessing same sex unions

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/Reuters: Anglican Church Sets Deadline on Gay Unions
By REUTERS
Published: February 19, 2007

DAR ES SALAAM (Reuters) - The Anglican Communion gave the U.S. Episcopal Church a September deadline on Monday to stop blessing same sex unions, but gave no clear indication of what action it would then take.

Anglican Church leaders are meeting in Tanzania to reconcile conservative and liberal views on homosexuality, exacerbated by the U.S. Episcopal Church's consecration of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.

In a statement issued in the final hour of the tense meeting, the Anglican Communion gave the U.S. church the September 30 deadline to meet the request first issued in 2004.

"If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the church in the life of the communion,'' the statement said....

***

Relations are so strained between the liberal and conservative factions that seven archbishops refused this week to take communion with U.S. presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in a rebuke at her unwavering support for Robinson and blessings for same sex unions.

Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who called gay relations ''an aberration unknown even in animal relationships,'' has set up a parallel conservative movement to allow disgruntled U.S. conservatives to place themselves under his oversight....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-anglican-meeting.html

[dsc]

1. It will be an honest shame if that church breaks up over this

but I don't know a way to avoid it. There is no real compromise here to be had.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Especially after statements such as this --

"Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who called gay relations 'an aberration unknown even in animal relationships,'..."

[dsc]

4. I know some will blame gays for this

and maybe some of us have been strident, but as you point out, what compromise can be had here? I feel for the Anglicans. They took on this issue and now have a gigantic mess on their hands. They are far from the only ones though. I think liberal mainliners may need to form one big liberal denomination and let the conservatives of each denomination leave.

[regnaD kciN]

62. I think +Akinola...

...is an aberration unknown even in animal relationships. :spank:

[AndyTiedye]

26. It's Either Break Up Or Cave In to the Haters

There are no other options.

[w4rma]

58. Or the Haters cave. (nt)

[AndyTiedye]

59. There Is No Hope Of That

[regnaD kciN]

27. As someone who grew up in the Episcopal Church...

...I'd rather break up than knuckle under. :grr:

[TrogL]

37. I am Anglican and I disagree

It's time for a schism. The Evangelicals need to leave. They have no respect for the teachings of Christ or the traditions of the Anglican Chruch.

[regnaD kciN]

39. My analysis of the situation...

After a few hours reflection on these events, here are my thoughts.

It's been obvious for some time that the Anglican Communion was headed for a split. It really comes down to "divorce is inevitable, so who's going to wind up with the house?" The goal of both parties is for themselves to end up still in the Anglican Communion, with the others having walked out or being kicked out for intransigence. So, what we've seen for several years is the traditionalist faction trying to make things hard enough on the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) for the latter to say they can't live with the terms of union, and walk. ECUSA, for its part, is hoping to outwait the traditionalist faction and hope they'll get hotheaded enough to walk out on their own and form their own "Orthodox Anglican Church" (or whatever), leaving ECUSA still in the Communion.

So, although it is emotionally-satisfying to imagine ECUSA responding to today's events with a "take this communique and shove it" statement, it is far more likely that the Bishops will take some sort of action that doesn't come close to satisfying the traditionalists, but will look like a conciliatory gesture to the remainder of the Communion. I would guess that they, "in the spirit of reconciliation ;-) " might agree to a ban on the consecration of further gay bishops and same-sex blessings "until the next Lambeth Conference" (mid-2008) or even "until our next General Convention" (2009), while pointedly not mentioning anything about any permanent ban...and wait. Most likely, the Archbishop of Canterbury (who doesn't want to be the one to break up the Communion himself, and who leans to the liberal wing personally) will judge that this is sufficient for the time being, until matters can get discussed further. The hope, for ECUSA, will be that the traditionalists will throw a fit at this, declare that the presence and tacit acceptance of the "apostate, sodomite" Episcopalians :eyes: so sullies the Anglican Communion that "the faithful remnant" like themselves have no choice but to move on and form a "Biblically-Christian" Anglican entity of their own, leaving us in and them out.

That's what I suspect the liberals in charge of ECUSA are hoping for. Of course, the traditionalists might instead decide to keep calm for the moment and merely move to tighten the pressure on us further, in which case this whole ecclesiastical chess game might go on for another several years. But I wouldn't be the least surprised to see ECUSA's House of Bishops respond to these demands, not with open defiance, but with something that makes it look like they're going along while in fact pointedly falling short of meeting the traditionalist bloc's demands.

[kwassa]

53. I agree with your analysis.

While I would personally like to see a direct confrontation with these Primates, I think that the reaction will be exactly what you said.

I think the end result might be the same, however, as I don't see Rowan Williams having any backbone in relation to Akinola and his buddies. We will be leaving due to irreconcilable differences, and Williams will do nothing to prevent the situation from coming to a head. He hasn't so far, and is not likely to do so in the future.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Absolutely! Terrific analysis.

I think a chess game says it well, too.

[lakercub]

2. Unknown even in animal relationships?

Wow...dumb ass.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

I have a feeling there are a thousand links like this.

Question out of ignorance. If the Anglican Church throws out its relationship with the Episcopal Church...what really happens? Do they actually need each other?

[WindRavenX]

5. plus, there is growing evidence that homosexuality confurs benefits from an evolutionary standpoint

If it was "bad", then there would be a strong selection to completely remove it or at least have it at low levels--yet we observe quite a high frequency over many taxi of animals where homosexuality is tollerated and even embraced.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. I'm an Episcopalian, and I say, Let them go. Some churches here in the U.S....

would join up with these "conservatives," and that would be the effect. Indeed, a few already have. One big issue is the enormous value of church properties, which belong to the U.S. Episcopal Church, not to individual parishes. Some churches in Virginia, which have split off, are involved now in a lawsuit with the Diocese of Virginia over their church properties.

The Episcopal Church is not made up of independent churches -- IMO, those who choose to go, don't take their property and its value with them.

And it's appalling, of course, that this has to happen over an issue of intolerance and exclusion. Where I've moved recently, all of the Episcopal churches are conservative, and in sympathy with the dissenters from national church policy. I stay home on Sundays.

The U.S. Church is bound to Anglicanism by history and tradition. You ask a good question. I'm assuming the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of worldwide Anglicanism, would not be a happy man to see the U.S. church, and its resources, go.

[lakercub]

11. Thanks for the answer

so it sounds like nothing of note can really happen between the Anglicans and the Episcopalians because their connection is mostly historic and symbolic. But the other part about real estate is quite interesting. How much ownership does the "National" Episcopal Church have when it comes to individual churches? Is it a church by church thing? Or are their mid-levels in the organization that handle real estate for the various regions? Like a Diocese? It would be interesting if renegade churches who left to join the Anglicans were financially liable to the Episcopal Church for the land and the building they inhabit.

Side note. My Grandmothers' Episcopalian Church recently closed because the priest (is that right?) supported gay unions and his conservative congregation ran him out of town for it (I knew him...he was very good to our family when my Grandfather died, I am quite ill-disposed to the church membership because of this). Finding someone else to tend the flock just became to hard and they are shutting it down.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. Technically speaking, according to TEC rules, the church

buildings and all property belongs to TEC, held in trust by the diocese.

Civil law has gone both ways, however -- supporting TEC rules on this, and ignoring them. It's a crap-shoot, legally speaking.

[lakercub]

16. Does the National Episcopalian Church

actually pay for the property or the building of the church? Or is that done at a more local level?

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Nope. They may help in some cases -- I know our diocese

has a loan program for building projects.

But usually the money is raised at the parish level, for improvements, upkeep and the like. But anything done is considered done for the church. The property, etc. is held in trust for TEC by the diocese.

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this. I do remember feeling a bit surprised my first go-round on the vestry as we discussed building improvements we needed and taking a loan from the diocese.

Thems the rules. But as I said, once you move to the civil courts, it's a whole 'nother thing.

[DeepModem Mom]

19. I hope someone can answer the question about at what level properties...

are owned and managed. It's been understood, until now, that individual properties do not belong to the individual parish. Since the splinter churches in Virginia are suing the diocese, and vice versa, I'm assuming that property is handled, and owned, at the diocesan level, but that's just my guess.

I think, instead of being liable for their properties, these renegade churches are supposed to hand over their properties to the Church, and find themselves new property.

Awful about your Grandmother's church -- especially since this is not how churches are supposed to be! In my case, the churches in the area are sympathetic with the dissenters, but only one has started the process toward possible separation.

[lakercub]

22. Unfortunately

my Grandmother is one of those who started disliking the church because of their tolerance. After the priest treated her husband so well during his dying days, to watch her turn against him was particularly disgusting. But it's Colorado Springs...we're good at hate.

[regnaD kciN]

29. In most cases, the property belongs to the diocese...

...except in a few cases, mainly of pre-Revolutionary War parishes who set out their own special charters before the establishment of the Episcopal Church as distinct from the Church of England. A handful of those have charters that grant the parish entity itself ownership of its property.

The main issue is in which sense the property belongs to the Episcopal Church, being held in trust by the diocese. While it's pretty clear that parishes usually can't secede and take their property with them, what happens should an entire diocese decide to secede? A couple are already trying to do so. What happens, say, if the national Church decides to tell the Anglican Communion to take a flying leap and some conservative or middle of the road dioceses decide they'd rather remain a part of worldwide Anglicanism than the national Church? Do those dioceses get to keep their property, forcing liberals in those dioceses who wish to remain part of the Episcopal Church to create a new diocese and build new parishes? Or is the national denomination ruled to be the owner of the property, and seceding dioceses have to give up all their churches? I would note, before anyone chooses sides on this issue, that it could cut the other way -- say the national Church decides to "give in" to the Communion's demands, and a group of liberal dioceses refuse to go along? I have no answers, except that this could wind up in the courts for a long time.

:shrug:

[DeepModem Mom]

36. Thanks for your post, regna --

What a mess! Just an FYI, although you may know already, the Washington Post has covered pretty extensively the conflict, and now the lawsuits, between the splinter Virginia churches and the Diocese.

[kwassa]

47. here is one situation, Nick Danger, 3rd Eye

Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is one of the ringleaders of the conservatives. They tried to change the diocesan rules so that the churches owned the property. They were challenged in court by one of the liberal parishes in the Diocese.


http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_81756_ENG_HTM.htm

PITTSBURGH: Court tells diocese to turn over documents by January 31

By Mary Frances Schjonberg
Sunday, January 28, 2007

A judge has agreed with a request by Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh to speed up the disclosure of information it requested from the Diocese of Pittsburgh in connection with a court case meant to enforce a ruling prohibiting the diocese from transferring title or use of real or personal property to any entity outside of the Episcopal Church.

(jump)

In October 2005, a Pennsylvania state court judge approved a settlement in an earlier Calvary lawsuit challenging a 2003 diocesan convention resolution asserting that congregations own their buildings and that neither the diocese nor national church structures could claim them if a parish decides to leave.

According to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, dioceses are created or dissolved only by acts of General Convention (Articles V and VI) and dioceses create or dissolve Episcopal congregations in their midst. Congregational property is held in trust for the diocese, and the diocese holds property in trust for the wider church (Canon I.7.4 of the Episcopal Church).

[GreenInNC]

6. Our new Presiding Bishop

I heard Katherine Jefferts Shiori speak a couple of weeks ago at our state convention and she was very adamant about her support of same sex unions. It was one of the moments that makes me proud to be an Episcopalian. The US church supports many, many missions in the third world and it would be a shame for these to end but if the conservatives in these country's condemn my church and by proxy my friends and family, then I see no reason to support them any longer. Our priest has a gay son and we have several same sex couples in our church. I would challange anybody to say that these wonderful people are any less Christian. This issue gets my blood boiling.

[regnaD kciN]

61. OTOH, unfortunately...

...she came out (bad phrasing under the circumstances, but still...) today in favor of the concessions (whether she'll get a majority of the bishops to agree with her is debatable at best), saying that we needed to practice "forbearance" toward our opponents, and calling for "a season of fasting" from working for gay rights. :puke: As one blogger put it:

I'm curious just what Bishop Jefferts Schori thinks anyone but LGBTs are giving up during this "fast". Also, when will it end? Certainly not with Easter!

My immediate reaction was to wonder whether it was possible to hold a recall election for Presiding Bishop, but I think Mad Priest puts it better than I could:

[GreenInNC]

71. yes, that is unfortunate

We can not cave to these demands. People should not be judged by the people they love.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Two remarks from an Episcopalian

1) Only seven out of 38 archbishops are acting like idiots, and not all the bishops who serve under the idiot archibishops agree with them.

2) Priests will continue to bless same-sex relationships on the sly.

[dsc]

8. I would never ask my pastor to do number 2

If we had to lie about it, then what would be the point?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. It's not lying

It's just ignoring the directive.

[dsc]

55. and when the priest is asked

what does he say?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. It's likely that the bishop won't even ask

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Mysterious dupe

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

56. This is inappropriate, but

....that subject line; is it Freudian?

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Our bishop has given priests the go-ahead to do so

Reasoning that since CUs are now legal here, the church ought to recognize legal unions.

I see more of that happening.

[regnaD kciN]

30. Unfortunately...

...that "seven out of thirty-eight" was only based on those who were earlier refusing to attend Communion with the U.S. Presiding Bishop. Since the communique passed the primate's meeting, it must have had at least a simple majority of the votes, meaning that there were a lot of primates who were willing to join us at the altar rail but are still demanding we accept the conservative demands.

Also, I would note that those demands involve a lot more than just refusing to allow same-sex blessings. They also would require the Episcopal Church to promise to forbid partnered gays and lesbians from being elected bishop in the future. Even worse, they would require a formal adoption of the 1998 Lambeth resolution (which the Episcopal Church has ignored since then on the grounds that it was merely an "advisory" opinion) declaring homosexuality to be "incompatible" with Christianity -- and to adopt that as the official standard for our "teaching and discipline" from now on. :puke:

In short, I can't think of any possible response except "take this communique and shove it"...but cannot guarantee that an overwhelming percentage of the national Church will agree.

[HappyWeasel]

9. and conservative third worlders wonder why they are poor....eh heh...

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Well, truly they're poor for many reasons, and the west

bears a great responsibility for it.

And TEC would continue to support the people of the Southern Cone, regardless of the enmity of their Anglican leaders. That's the way we are.

I think it would be a horrible thing to see the people there suffer for the abhorrent behavior of their leaders, particularly since those leaders are not as democratically chosen as ours are.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. I'm confused

I need to read more, but I've read that their was some statement, full of TEC's supposed transgressions and rules for our future behavior -- but that this came from the usual suspects.

I've also read a bit of a *proposed* "Anglican Covenant", that seems a bit more even-handed, and that is only a proposal.

Nowhere but this article have I seen things framed this way -- that TEC has had its wrists slapped and is now under some deadline.

For one thing, our House of Bishops doesn't have the power to unilaterally make decisions for the entire Church in this way. The next time we meet in general convention is 2009. So, technically, our canons require that until that meeting comes about, nothing will be decided. (Perhaps confusion because our governance is not that of other provinces?)

Anyone else have a better grip on this yet?

[DeepModem Mom]

21. Thanks for your posts, and I hope someone can answer your question. nt

[regnaD kciN]

32. Actually...

Nowhere but this article have I seen things framed this way -- that TEC has had its wrists slapped and is now under some deadline.

...I've read the entire communique, and that article is pretty much accurate. :-(

And the "Anglican Covenant" isn't much better, essentially allowing the international body to meddle in each national Church's decisions -- and to basically excommunicate the latter if it doesn't like what they're doing. It's clearly designed to grant the southern-hemisphere traditionalists a weapon in forcing "liberal" branches like the U.S. and Canada to toe their line.

[JerseygirlCT]

42. For which reason, I dislike it, but I suspect

that the US won't be alone in agreeing. Canada, New Zealand, even the CoE... can't see them going for this.

And if the Southern Cone thugs really need this, I suspect they'll get it -- in their own communion, separate from the AC.

But, like the others here, this is far too great a price to pay. I'd prefer we go our own way if the alternative is to sacrifice our glbt brothers and sisters to bias and prejudice. Not to mention our women!

I'm guessing this was a way to buy time from the big-mouths. Lots of things change in a couple of years. Several of those most egregious primates may retire by then, I believe. That leaves me room for hope.

[MasonJar]

23. I am Episcopalian and I am very proud of my church for doing what

is right. If others cannot agree, we can go our own way. There can be no compromise on what is the correct Christian response. Jesus stood strong for the embattled and so must we.

[pnwmom]

24. I think a break-up would be a good idea.

The Anglicans can have Pope Benedict and his end of the Catholic Church.

And the rest of the Episcopalians and the progressive Catholics (including the Jesuits) can join together. Works for me.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. Actually, the Anglicans have the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Who is the leader of the Anglican communion.

Although there has been some loose talk about reunion with Rome in recent years, it's probably not going to go anywhere due to differences on certain points of doctrine.

[pnwmom]

31. Yes, I know about him. But have you been reading about this?

I'm just saying -- it's a possibility. And I wouldn't be surprised.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21253771-421,00.html


As joint chair of an international commission of both churches, Archbishop Bathersby helped produce a 42-page statement on how Anglicans and Catholics could re-unite, possibly under the leadership of the Pope.

Senior bishops in both churches have already backed the statement, which is now being considered by the Vatican ahead of a formal response.

SNIP

Speaking in Brisbane yesterday, Archbishop Bathersby said he was optimistic the statement would help the churches move towards "full visible unity".

SNIP

Despite differences over issues such as divorce and contraception, Archbishop Bathersby said there were no insurmountable hurdles to a merger of the churches.

[regnaD kciN]

33. Such efforts at reunion have been going on for some time...

...but this would likely not be the outcome of the current controversy.

For one thing, the traditionalists in Africa, Asia, and South America are very Protestant -- they were evangelized by 19th century Anglican missionaries with a near-fundamentalist outlook, and have more in common with, say, the Southern Baptists in this country in terms of theology. While they may share the current Roman heirarchy's conservatism on sexual matters, given their theology, there is no way that they would submit to "Papist" control. Likely, many there share the same attitude toward Rome found in lots of fundie churches in the U.S. -- that Roman Catholicism isn't "Bible-believeing" or "born again," and therefore isn't really Christian. :eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. I hadn't heard about this particular proposal, but there've been similar ones.

And it really couldn't move forward without the Archbishop of Canterbury signing off on it (not to mention that the UK Parliament would probably get involved as well, given that the Church of England is an established church). So reunion with Rome MIGHT happen, but given the complexity of the process I'd say it's unlikely.

[pnwmom]

38. Do you think there's any likelihood that the Anglican communion

will split up over the current issues (gay marriage and women priests)?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. I suspect that it may lead to a schism; alhough gay marriage is more of an issue...

the Church of England allows female priests already, after all (the issue is the elevation of women to episcopal rank, which is for some reason more controversial...personally I don't see why a woman can't be a bishop, if she can be a priest).

[JerseygirlCT]

49. The priest/bishop difference has been explained to me in this way:

priests serve in their diocese. Bishops must meet and work with those from outside their diocese and indeed, with those outside their province. The thinking (faulty) being that others shouldn't have to be bothered with the tolerant ways of churches ordaining women and gays, and actually have to treat them as equals.

[kwassa]

50. There have been a number of women bishops already, prior to Jefferts Shiori

here in the US.

Like Suffragen Bishop Jane Dixon, who served at Washington National Cathedral. I've talked with her a number of times. She is now retired, but did have to face down a parish in court who tried to drag in conservative priest from Texas without approval from the Diocese. They lost, in court.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. I don't think the ABC could even sign off on that for the

entire communion.

He's not the Anglican pope; he doesn't have that sort of power over the member provinces of the AC.

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. Yes...

but the C of E is, with the Anglican Church of Canada and the US Episcopal Church, one of the most liberal (relatively speaking) churches in the Anglican communion; and the long history of mutual antagonism and suspicion of "popery" in Britain (dating back centuries...to the days of bloody Mary Tudor, with her counter-Reformation excess, and the Stuart kings, with the Gunpowder Plot and subsequent persecution of recusant Catholics) makes it a bit unlikely, it seems to me, that the Church of England, at least, would enter communion with Rome (the Anglican churches of South Africa, India, et al tend to be more theologically conservative, so they might; but there are historical reasons to doubt that, as well).

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Oh I agree.

I think this proposal may be just an attempt to make hay of the attention on the Anglican church and the perceived divisions to put a bid in for the RCC.

[pnwmom]

51. I understand that -- I was thinking it could happen, though, in the context

of a split in the Communion.

[Canuckistanian]

25. U.S. Episcopals to Anglican Church: Drop Dead

Really, what's to be gained in promoting homophobia? More bigots? More haters? More violence against gays?

I'm sure Christ didn't have the book of Romans in mind when he preached "love thine enemy as thyself".

[regnaD kciN]

34. AMEN!

:grr:

[regnaD kciN]

41. Here's an interesting blog on the matter...

First of all, it appears to the Primates who wrote this document that the "recommendations" are intended to be much more than that:

...The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion...

That's an ultimatum, not a recommendation. Strike one.

Then consider the makeup of the proposed "Pastoral Council." It will consist of four Archbishops who are not members of the Episcopal Church. As such, they can advise and recommend various things, but cannot exercise any authority outside of their jurisdiction. Yet look at a couple of the descriptions of the proposed role for this Council included in this proposal:

...authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme...take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme...

Allowing foreign bishops to make authorizations and take actions that will effect the Episcopal Church? I think not. Strike two.

And then there's the actions demanded of our House of Bishops:

...In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion...

It is certainly within the power of the House of Bishops to offer such a covenant and confirmation, but it is doubtful if they will, as to do so would be to attempt to trump the mind of General Convention, which includes a House of Deputies (a factor that the Primates repeatedly seem to ignore). Any response by the Bishops, without the support of the clergy and laity of TEC, would be empty and meaningless. In light of GC2006, in which B033 was a real stretch, and one that would never have passed if not for the intervention of Bishop Katharine, it is rather clear that the House of Deputies is not prepared to approve either of these ultimatums issued by the Primates. For the House of Bishops to bend to the will of the Primates in order to assure they can have tea with Rowan at Lambeth would be to run the risk of a further deterioration of the trust relationship between the Deputies and the Bishops. To expect our bishops to do such a thing, and to once again place them in such a position, was an error on the part of the Primates. Strike three. That's enough for this proposal to be outa there.

Since the Primates took a couple of other swings, I would be remiss in not mentioning them. There is much concern expressed for "those groups alienated," which is clearly intended to be a reference to the extreme conservatives, yet not one note of concern for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters or the Via Media parishes trapped in extremist dioceses. Strike four.

And finally, there is this bit of twisted logic regarding border crossings:

...Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church...

So, those Archbishops who are plundering the assets of TEC, in clear non-compliance with the Windsor Report, will be allowed to continue their plundering raids until TEC becomes Windsor compliant??? We live in bizarre times. Strike five.

It amazes me that the leaders of the Anglican Communion continue to believe that the Episcopal Church is so desperate to stay in their club that we will agree to anything to make peace. Peace at any cost is always a false peace. In this case, it seems to me that the cost is much too high.

This is no longer solely about issues of sexual diversity. That is the presenting issue; the canary in the coal mine. The foundational issue is about where the locus of authority will reside in the Anglicanism of the future. This proposal by the Primates is a direct challenge to our polity.

The Primates have not been, until now, like the Roman Curia. In our discipline, it is General Convention, with representatives from all four orders having voice and vote, that sets policy, within the confines of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. We believe that this process allows us to discern the movement of God within the Church quite well. We are not inclined to grant veto power to some outside agency.

Thanks for playing, Primates, and better luck next time.

:applause:

More here.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Love Fr. Jake! Great blog and very informative! nt

[DeepModem Mom]

46. Wow! Thanks for posting this! nt

[kwassa]

52. Great editorial, and 100% right.

[Eugene]

60. AP: Episcopal leader asks for time

Episcopal leader asks for time

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer

Tue Feb 20, 9:32 PM ET

NEW YORK - The head of the Episcopal Church asked church members
for patience Tuesday after fellow Anglican leaders demanded the U.S.
denomination step back from its support of gays or risk losing its full
membership in the world Anglican fellowship.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a statement that
Anglican leaders are asking all sides in the fight over the Bible and
sexuality to "forbear for a season" until the 77 million-member Anglican
Communion can forge a compromise.

"Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the
other," Jefferts Schori said. "Each is asked to discipline itself for the
sake of the greater whole."

-snip-

Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070221/ap_on_re_us/anglicans_gays

[kwassa]

63. Her full statement can be found here:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82669_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined

Our own Church has in recent years tended to focus on the suffering of one portion of the body, particularly those who feel that justice demands the full recognition and celebration of the gifts of gay and lesbian Christians. That focus has been seen in some other parts of the global Church, as inappropriate, especially as it has been felt to be a dismissal of traditional understandings of sexual morality. Both parties hold positions that can be defended by appeal to our Anglican sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason - but each finds it very difficult to understand and embrace the other. What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting - from authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan boundaries on the other.

(jump)

While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God's dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God's good time, be proclaimed.

[DeepModem Mom]

64. Do you think Bishop Jefferts Schori should have agreed to this? nt

[kwassa]

67. I think she has to, for now.

She is not so much agreeing, as I read it, as stating the purpose of trying to stay in Communion, with each side recognizing and respecting the other. This won't last, in my opinion, and September 30th will come and go.

The church is fundamentally democratic, and she has to represent the will of the churches and dioceses. She has to offer the olive branch for starters, however, to take the high ground.

Bottom line is that neither the ABC, or anyone else, can tell us how to run our church.

[DeepModem Mom]

68. Thanks -- I didn't quite know how to react to it. All of this is so sad. nt

[kwassa]

69. Read Father Jake today, there is a lot of good commentary.

It is sad, but we need to take the stand and not wimp out.


http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/

this blog references this statement, which is great:

A response to the Communique from the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California:

_______________________________________________________________________________

I am writing in response to the Communique coming out of the primates meeting in Tanzania. While many are reacting to the words of the Communique, I would like to respond from an awareness of the foundation of the day-to-day ongoing commitment of Christians to the gospel of Jesus. As bishop to the Diocese of California, I make the following affirmations:


The inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the full life of the Church is a matter of justice: as we are all part of the world, and the kindom of God is like a net laid over that same world. All on the earth are connected by this net, whether perceived or not. Actions of justice and injustice reverberate throughout the whole, promoting either integrity, remembering, and shalom, or diabolic isolation.


Understood as expressed above, our task in the Church is not actually to include or exclude anyone, but to show forth an intrinsic co-inherence that simply is, created and sustained by God.


Gay and lesbian people who come to the Church seeking the blessing of the Church for their unions are people seeking to lead holy lives, exactly like heterosexual couples. The Church must respond to gay and lesbian people seeking the blessing of counseling, community support, prayer, and sacrament in the same way it does to heterosexual couples.


The Diocese of California is a place within the Church -- not alone, but prominently -- where gay and lesbian people have been freer to offer their gifts: Both professional gifts and those of lay and ordained ministry. As a result, the Diocese of California has been immeasurably enriched. As bishop of this diocese, I know very well that the Christian rights of gay and lesbian people are intrinsic and must be supported, and that without these gifts, this diocese would be as immeasurably impoverished as it is now enriched. Immeasurably as the spiritual gifts of all God's people know no measure.


The polity of The Episcopal Church requires the deliberation and consent of two bodies, the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, to properly respond to the requests made by the primates in their Communique.


The Episcopal Church should make every effort, including an extraordinary meeting of the two houses, and redoubled efforts to help the other provinces of the Communion understand both our theology relating to marriage and human sexuality and our polity. We should make these efforts, and at the same time not compromise the essentials of theology or our polity.


I will call on the Diocese of California to come together at Grace Cathedral during the Easter Season (at a time and on a date to be determined) when we affirm the triumph of Christ over all that destroys the creatures of God, filling that great house of prayer for all people with the full diversity of the people of God: people who differ in mind but not heart; gay and straight people; men and women; the young with the old; the poor and the rich; people of every ethnicity, all together to show our understanding of Christ’s gift of new life in the Church.

+Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
Shrove Tuesday, 2007

[sarcasmo]

65. Shouldn't this have been posted in the Religious section. I thought that was made for these topics.

[Stuckinthebush]

66. I remember when this flap started back in 2003

Here in Birmingham, the Very Right Heck-of-a-Reverend Something or Other at the Birmingham Episcopal Cathedral of the Advent went ballistic. He put up a black flag over the Church to protest. He had a series of angry sermons against homosexuality. He went over the edge.

This church has big money donors in it, and has done many good things in the city. I was so very proud of the congregation, most of whom were appalled at the actions of this guy. There were people walking out of the services in protest. Well, he left and I think is a professor at some university today.

The vast majority of Episcopalians who I know see this as a non-issue. They support gay unions, they support gay ordinations, and they don't like the Anglicans telling them what to do.

[Unvanguard]

70. "Unknown even in animal relationships"

Ignorant bigot.

[Zhade]

72. Or a liar.

Or both.