The Episcopal Church authorizes rite same-sex blessings; Diocese of South Carolina walks out of #GC77 in protest

From here:

Deputies debate the authorization of rites for same-sex blessings.

The Episcopal Church officially authorized provisional rites for same-sex blessings at their 77th General Convention meeting in Indianapolis yesterday.

The House of Deputies overwhelmingly concurred with the House of Bishops who had earlier voted by a substantial majority to allow provisional blessings of same-sex couples in the Episcopal Church with 76% of the clergy and 78% of the laity in the House of Deputies voting in favor of establishing the rite. The bishops voted to authorize the rites 111-41, with three abstentions.

“For the church to say, ‘This is an active part of our life in ministry, and we support this,’ is an extraordinarily important step,” said the Very Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA. Dean Hancock married her partner, the Rev. Mally Lloyd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston in 2011.

The Episcopal Church becomes the largest mainline church in the United States to authorize the rites for same-sex couples seeking blessings of their unions or civil marriages. The denomination follows the United Church of Christ (UCC), which has supported same sex marriage since 2005.

“I believe the Episcopal Church will continue to evolve on the issue of marriage equality and look forward to joining our UCC brothers and sisters in being a headlight instead of taillight on marriage equality,” the Rev. Susan Russell, a gay rights advocate and Episcopal priest based in Pasadena, CA, said in a statement.

Currently gay marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia, with at least three more states poised to legalize gay marriage in the near future. Thirty states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman only.

Although Episcopal bishops are now able to publicly authorize the rites in their diocese, a “conscience clause” was also added that allows bishops to choose to refrain from authorizing the rites in their dioceses without penalty.

Twelve conservative and moderate Episcopal bishops released a “Minority Report” stating their opposition to the rites. “The liturgy entitled The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant, is for all practical purposes same-sex marriage,” they write in their Minority Report. “It includes all of the essential elements found in a marriage rite: vows, an exchange of rings, a pronouncement, and a blessing.”

“We believe that the rite subverts the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer, places The Episcopal Church outside the mainstream of Christian faith and practice, and creates further distance between this Church and the Anglican Communion along with other Christian churches,” the bishops stated.

They were joined in their opposition by the deputations of the both the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Central Florida.

This afternoon, the deputation of the Diocese of South Carolina walked out of General Convention in protest. "Due to the actions of General Convention, the South Carolina Deputation has concluded that we cannot continue with business as usual," they wrote in a statement. "We all agree that we cannot and will not remain on the floor of the House and act as if all is normal. John Burwell and Lonnie Hamilton have agreed to remain at Convention to monitor further developments and by their presence demonstrate that our action is not to be construed as a departure from the Episcopal Church," the deputation wrote.

Earlier this week the Episcopal Church voted to place no barriers against transgendered persons from assuming leadership positions in the Episcopal Church or from pursuing ordination as priests.

Now dipping below two million in membership, down from its peak of 3.6 million members in the 1960's, the Episcopal Church belongs to the 77 million-member Anglican Communion led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. Much of its membership is centered in the "Global South" of Africa and Asia where Anglican leaders have voiced concerns about the actions of the Episcopal Church.

Following the election of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson as the bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, global Anglican leaders asked the Episcopal Church to initiate a moratorium on electing non-celibate gay bishops. The Episcopal Church agreed at their General Convention in Columbus in 2006 to the moratorium. But at the 2009 General Convention in Anaheim, CA, even with the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the church lifted the ban, allowing private same sex blessings at the local bishop's discretion.

The public rites for same-sex blessings will be available for use by December 2, 2012.

Read it all here.

Guess who's idea it was to form the Anglican Commuinon ...

Dr. Robert Prichard is professor of church history at Virginia Theological Seminary. He writes a fascinating overview on how the Anglican Communion was actually created and how the surprising leadership speerheading the birth of the Communion came not from England but, yes, from The Episcopal Church in the United States.


Dr. Prichard writes:

Dr. Bob Prichard

There may be good reasons for opposing the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant but an appeal to the perpetual independence of the Episcopal Church and a characterization of the Anglican Communion as an incursion of ambitious archbishops of Canterbury seeking to snare unsuspecting Americans certainly is not one of them. On the contrary, American Episcopalians should look with pride on the role that they have played in the creation of the Anglican Communion. The repeated American initiatives over the middle decades of the 19th century have much to do with the existence of the Anglican Communion. And the idea that Anglican Communion bodies might be appropriate fora in which to discuss matters of common theological concern is hardly a new concept created in order to combat American views on sexuality; it was an idea already present in the thinking of some American Episcopalians well before the first gathering of the Lambeth Conference in 1867.

Please read it all - very much worth the read!!  Read it all here.

Questions raised regarding authority of new "Anglican Communion Standing Committee" following resignations from bishops representing majority of the Communion

Members of the AC Standing Committee

There is no doubt that "something" happened in the western bureaucracy of the Anglican Communion following the Dar es Salaam Primates meeting in 2007. The Rev'd Dr. Steve Noll points to the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury engaged in what he describes as a "betrayal of trust" after switching strategies following the release of the official communique from that landmark meeting imploring that the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) must be held accountable for its determination to continue to engage in communion-breaking actions.

Since then it has been in some ways brilliant bureaucratic maneuvers by the western minority leadership to redirect authority away from the collegial "instruments of communions" and to a small centralized committee called rather innocuously a "standing committee" suddenly given grandiose powers (or at least authority to send out press releases) by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The agenda was set by the western minority and when protests were made to its creation and domination by the west (including appointing the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church as well as the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut) to the group, it was clear the the communion was coming apart at the seams.

Dr. Noll here offers an insightful commentary on the controversial creation of this "standing committee" and it's claim to hold powers it does not have and cannot have.  It's very difficult not to make the claim that the last meeting of the "standing committee" was completely pointless and a total waste of time and money. 

Make no mistake about it, The Episcopal Church fully intends to authorize rites for same gender marriages in the Episcopal Church at its General Convention next year.  It will not pass the Anglican Covenant, for even in its extremely weakened condition, Section IV remains in the Covenant and that, at least in writing, poses a problem for TEC.  However, the covenant is as Ronald Reagan once described a "paper castle" - easily blown away by the winds of change since there is no mechanism in place for enforcement, unless this Standing Committee actually has the audacity to remove its own leading members from their seats.  And since those very members play a central role in setting the agenda for the standing committee meetings, that is like asking the wolf to clean up Little Red Riding Hood's house after the mess.

It would be an astonishing thing to see TEC remove itself from the standing committee - perhaps in a gesture of hope, it may not be a bad time to get the committee a Hoover.

From "Sea Change in the Anglican Communion," by Dr. Steve Noll:

Dr. Steve Nol

The Archbishops of Canterbury during the decade following Lambeth 1998 tried to blunt the gale force winds from the Global South at a series of Primates’ Meetings which climaxed in Rowan Williams reneging on the Primates’ resolutions at Dar es Salaam in 2007. The Archbishop’s betrayal of trust led seven Provinces, including two from the largest Provinces in the Communion, to convene the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in June 2008 and to boycott the Lambeth Conference later that summer. These Provinces went on to set up a parallel Primates’ Council and recognize the Anglican Church in North America as the legitimate Anglican Province in North America.

Dr. Rowan Williams

Ignoring these storm signals, Archbishop Williams sought to calm matters by advocating an Anglican Covenant as a means to deal with controversies within the Communion. The most striking weakness of the final Covenant draft (December 2009) was the enhanced role assigned to the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” as adjudicator of Covenant disputes. Strong theological objections were raised by scholars of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), who argued this Committee, as a creature of only one “Instrument’ of the Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), did not have the standing to act for the whole Communion and that in a Church constituted by the historic episcopate, bishops – whether in council (Primates) or plenary session (Lambeth Conference) – were the proper guardians of doctrine and discipline. The ACI scholars concluded: “It is now beyond doubt that the newly transformed and empowered ACC Standing Committee cannot function as the committee required by Section 4 [the enforcement section] of the Covenant.”

Beyond the theological questions, there were practical objections to the Standing Committee as an instrument of governance. Global South leaders refused to sit at table with representatives of TEC on the Standing Committee. Archbishop Henry Orombi, the African Primate on the Committee, had communicated his refusal to Rowan Williams after the Dar es Salaam meeting; Williams never replied to this objection. Business continued as usual, and the Standing Committee merely noted Orombi’s repeated absence “with regret” and even suggested that he be removed according to its rules of attendance.

Dr. Mouneer Anis

Bishop Mouneer Anis, a second Global South Committee member, took another tack, urging his fellow Global South leaders to attend the meetings and hold the Communion accountable to its commitments. In January 2010, however, he gave up the effort, penning an impassioned resignation letter which stated:

I have attended every meeting of the Standing Committee as well as the ACC-14. However, I have come to the sad realization that there is no desire within the ACC or the SCAC to follow through on the recommendations that have been taken by the Communion and which are tearing its fabric apart. Moreover, the SCAC, formerly known as the Joint Standing Committee (JSC), has continually questioned the authority of the other Instruments of Communion, especially the Primates Meeting and the Lambeth Conference….

Unfortunately the current structure of the Anglican Communion is not a true reflection of the world-wide Anglican Communion which grows mainly in the Global South. The Anglican Communion Office (ACO) is mainly staffed by Westerner [sic] who do not necessarily express the voices of the rest of the Communion. The result is a lack of the sense of ownership.

Three months later Archbishop Ian Earnest followed Archbishop Orombi and Bishop Mouneer in resigning from the Standing Committee, stating:

Consequently, I feel constrained by my conscience to uphold my duty as shepherd of the flock and to forthwith suspend all communication both verbal and sacramental with both the TEC and ACC – their Primates bishops and clergy until such time as they reverse their theological innovations, and show a commitment to abide by the decisions of the Lambeth Conference.

What is noteworthy is that the only way these Primates found they could be faithful to their calling as bishops in the Communion was to depart from its central committee. For all the talk of inclusiveness and dialogue, it is the innovators who are left at the table, dialoguing among themselves. This ploy of excluding traditionalists while mouthing faux inclusivism is old hat to those of us from TEC, but it has now been carried out on the international stage. The Minutes of the two succeeding Standing Committee meetings show how little impact the theological and political protests of conservatives made on the Lambeth bureaucracy and its Western facilitators.

The Standing Committee

The Standing Committee was reorganized by a revised Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, which went into effect in early 2010. Since then, the Committee has met twice, once in July 2010 and once in March 2011. Whereas the Minutes of the Standing Committee had previously been kept secret, they are now available on the Anglican Communion website (here and here).

Reading committee minutes is a sleep-inducing exercise, and these minutes are no exception. My purpose here is merely to point to those moments in the 3-day meetings that reveal the current fracture within the Communion.

Let’s begin with the composition of the Standing Committee. It is chaired by Bishop Tengatenga of Malawi. A common “inclusive” tactic of the bureaucracy is to appoint an African to serve as chair of a committee, the agenda of which is pre-determined in London. Other members, may come from the Global South, even a GAFCON province, like Mrs. Philippa Aimable of Ghana, but it is clear from the Minutes that they have little voice or authority within the Committee itself. The real power players are all Anglo-Saxon, working hand in hand with the bureaucrats like Canon Kenneth Kearon and Canon John Rees. Together they keep the Committee sailing smartly to safe harbor.
As noted, there were no episcopal representatives of the GAFCON provinces that had protested the actions of the North American churches present at these meetings. The Episcopal Church was well-represented by two members, Primate Katherine Schori and Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut, the consummate ecclesiastical politician. The Committee “noted and expressed regret at the resignations of Bishop Mouneer Anis, Archbishop Henry Orombi, Archbishop Justice Akrofi (an alternate to Archbishop Orombi) and Bishop Azad Marshall,” and bade them a wistful farewell, claiming that “their voices were missed.” Not surprisingly, they were replaced by others who were less likely to upset the smooth running of the operation. (1)

Dato’ Stanley Isaacs

The one hold-out at the first Committee meeting was Dato’ Stanley Isaacs, a lawyer and layman from the Province of Southeast Asia. Mr. Isaacs has been a strong voice opposed to the agenda of the West but also in favor of working for reform within the Communion structures. It is instructive to follow his attempt at the first meeting to address the concerns that had been raised repeatedly over the years over the violations of The Episcopal Church.

Mr. Isaacs’ opportunity came when the Standing Committee discussed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 2010 Pentecost Letter, which proposed that Provinces that had violated the “three moratoria” against consecrating of homosexual bishops, authorizing same-sex rites, and crossing Provincial boundaries reduce their members to observer status on ecumenical commissions. Some Standing Committee members objected to this proposal, even while Rowan Williams assured them that it was not intended to be “punitive.” Isaacs, on the other hand, argued that this disciplinary slap was not enough and “queried whether members of TEC should also be withdrawn from other bodies such as the Standing Committee”:

Referring to the communiqué of the fourth Anglican Global South to South Encounter [in April 2010], Dato’ Isaacs said that those who had met in Singapore had reflected that the time had come to take decisive action towards arresting the present situation and restoring the integrity and unity of the Communion. He said that the Primates’ communiqués over the years had been consistent in affirming Lambeth I.10, that the Lambeth Commission had spoken of walking apart; that the churches of the Global South did not wish to walk apart from the Communion but wishes to walk apart from TEC; that if TEC were not prepared to separate voluntarily, then a forced separation on a temporary basis would be a way forward.”

Clearly Isaacs had disrupted the agenda and the bonhomie, but the distress was momentary, as his confrontative statement was quickly enfolded in a cloud of “indaba”:

Members of the Standing Committee continued to discuss developments in the Communion, and a range of perspectives was heard and explored. Issues included: the hope that a “third space” could be maintained where people could share their concerns and engage in a sustained and deeper way; the thought that the Anglican Communion was in a period of transition, and experiencing growth pains, to be navigated with charity, honesty and imagination; the danger of supposing we knew all the truth; the fact that there are Anglicans who believe there is no biblical authority to justify the consecration of gay or lesbian persons; an uneasiness about absolute tests of orthodoxy, but also an uneasiness about initiatives and actions that widened the gulf between communities in such a way that they could not speak for one another or be responsible for one another.

Noting that such matters would be addressed later in the Continuing Indaba report, the matter was punted to the end of the meeting. At that point and not to be deterred, Mr. Isaacs repeated his request that members of TEC should be excluded from the Standing Committee and Instruments of Communion.

Dato’ Isaacs said that he wished to speak on behalf of conservative orthodox Anglicans and appealed to TEC members of the Standing Committee to respect the feelings of the majority of Anglicans. Bishop Jefferts Schori responded that people in TEC had made decisions in what they believed were faithful and biblically sound ways. She said it was difficult to explain to members of TEC why it was the only Province currently in focus, since extra-provincial interventions had predated any consecration of openly gay bishops. She said that in the Communion we saw through a glass darkly, but more effectively together. Our task was to call people to the table to find creative, constructive and life-giving way [sic] forward.

Next the Archbishop of Canterbury opened his mind on the subject:

Archbishop Williams reflected that while it was important that ecumenical partners knew with whom they were talking, when the Standing Committee, the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC discussed matters of faith and order, they did so recognizing unfinished business among themselves. Within these bodies, there was still a case for the widest possible representation with sufficient trust and confidence to pursue conversations.

TEC Bishops, Dr. Schori and Dr. Douglas.

Bishop Douglas addressed Isaacs with the smooth tongue of pluralism and representative democracy. He

...appreciated Dato’ Isaacs request, which reflected the view of some others [!] in the ACC; he similarly tried to represent those who had elected him and would continue to do everything he could for the wellbeing of the Communion. He wished to contribute to the plurality of voices and considered that the way in which people read the Bible from their own context was a great gift of the Communion today.

Isaacs made one final appeal to reason, arguing that since the TEC representatives were being removed from bodies involved in ecumenical dialogue, TEC members should also recuse themselves from any matters of faith and order proceeding from those bodies to the Standing Committee and ACC. “However,” the Minutes go on to note, “there was no consensus for this.” The Committee then resolved to “regret” the breaches of the three moratoria and the “consequential resignations” of former members,” and passed the matter on further consideration to the (new) Primates Meeting and ACC.

Dato’ Stanley Isaacs, much to his credit, made waves at the first Standing Committee Meeting in July 2010. He was not present at the next one in March 2011, and the issue of TEC and Lambeth I.10 and moratoria was not mentioned. The Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, with GAFCON members absent, will almost certainly not consider the divisive issues further. The sea, once roiled by Gene Robinson and the Global South Primates, is calm again. All is well.

The other item of interest from the first Standing Committee minutes concerned the dubious legitimacy of the Committee itself amongst the Instruments of Communion and the proposed Covenant as had been challenged by the ACI and others. In discussion of the General Secretary’s Report, it was noted that the term “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” sounded a trifle imperialistic since the Standing Committee did not in fact represent all four Instruments of Communion.

It was recognized that the words “of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting” were merely descriptive of the fact that the Standing Committee derived its authority from its responsibility to the two Instruments of Communion which elect its membership, and on whose behalf it acted.

The solution was simple: just call it “The Standing Committee.” This resolution of the problem is facile by half. The Standing Committee in fact derives its authority neither from the Primates’ Meeting nor the Anglican Consultative Council but rather from the ACC constitution. The Primates and ACC elect five and nine members to the Standing Committee, respectively, and they receive its reports, but it is legally and financially the accountable party. It might be more accurate to describe it as the Board of Directors of the Anglican Communion Office, and like that office, its missives will go out on stationery headed “The Anglican Communion,” full stop.

As noted above, the Standing Committee also has been assigned a critical role to play in the Covenant.

Archbishop Williams referred to the role of the Standing Committee in the outworking of the Covenant and reflected that some questions needed addressing: how the Standing Committee, designated in the Covenant as the broker of decisions, might work actively with IASCUFO [Inter-Anglican Standing Committee for Unity, Faith and Order]; and uncertainties around Standing Committee members whose Provinces hadn’t signed the Covenant being adjudicators.

Move along, move along.

Having acknowledged a problem, Williams skipped past the questions and uncertainties and stated that “when enough Provinces had adopted the Covenant, then the Standing Committee could think about behaving as if the Covenant were in force.” His skip in logic and process was similar to the tactic employed at the 2010 ACC meeting in Jamaica, where serious procedural irregularities had been revealed but were met with mild embarrassment and brushed aside with vague promises of further investigation. “Move right along, folks, nothing to see here,” seems to be his response to such objections.

Read it all here at the AAC.  Dr. Steve Noll is the retired Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University and Emeritus Professor at Trinity School for Ministry.

PBS covers the Lambeth Palace Conference

Again, it is what is not said that speaks volumes.

Archbishop Bob Duncan announces reorganization of his cabinet as focus of ministry shifts to "where we are headed, rather than where we have been ..."

UPDATED: Anglican TV brings us Archbishop Duncan's State of the Church Address at the meeting of the Provincial Council in Long Beach, CA:



Archbishop Bob Duncan of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), addressed the ACNA Provincial Council meeting in Long Beach, CA today.  In the address, Archbishop Duncan highlighted the growth of the developing Anglican province by directing attention to recently published statistics of church growth from last year:

According to the data submitted in the Annual Parochial Reports there were, in the year 2010, 987 baptisms of adults over thirty, 424 baptisms of young people aged sixteen to thirty, and 1647 baptisms of children in the ACNA dioceses, not including the congregations of our Ministry Partners.  What is so stunning about this data is that the number of baptisms of those 16 and older is almost equal to the number of children baptized.  

 As the ACNA moves forward in ministry and growth, Archbishop Duncan reflected the shift in focus in his announcement of the reorganization of his office:

ACNA Archbishop Bob Duncan

As this Provincial Council meets, I am announcing a re-organization of my team of advisors (my “cabinet”) to reflect where we are headed, rather than where we have been. This change is like the change represented in the diocesan stories just told. The Lead Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership – representing all the jurisdictions and organizations out of which the Anglican Church in North America was gathered – were the original Executive Committee of the Anglican Church in North America. Last June the transition was made to an Executive Committee of six clergy and six laity, chaired by the Archbishop. Yet because we are – in the best Anglican fashion – to be “episcopally led and synodically governed” [Lambeth Conference, 1930] the need for wisdom from Lead Bishops representing our jurisdictional and organizational roots caused me to retain a body that had literally led us together into unity. They ceased to be the Province’s Executive Committee, but became the Archbishop’s Cabinet.

Now comes the next step. We are becoming one church. I think everyone here now recognizes that our most important identity is as members of the Anglican Church in North America. We treasure our originating bonds, whether as part of the Reformed Episcopal Church of as part of the Province of Kenya or Uganda or Forward in Faith or whatever, but we are now chiefly all Anglican Church.

So with this Third Annual Provincial Council I am re-shaping my chief advisors group to reflect the program and mission of the Church, to reflect where we are going, where we are being called. The Cabinet will have two arms, one provincial and one global. The provincial arm will include the leaders of five key domestic initiatives (Catechesis, Anglican 1000, Engagement with Islam, Ecumenical Relations, and Liturgy and Common Worship), as well as some others. The global arm will include many seasoned bishops long-known to you, but also the Executive Director of the Anglican Relief and Development Fund. This re-organization also means that not all the members of my Cabinet will be bishops. In two years the Lord has brought us very far and blessed us very much. In order to keep the synod in its rightful place (governing) alongside the bishops (leading) I will also ask that every meeting of the Executive Committee have from one to three reports from members of the Cabinet on the initiatives Cabinet members are themselves leading or undertaking on behalf of us all.

A year ago at Provincial Council on the East Coast (Amesbury) we agreed to the request of the Anglican Mission in the Americas to move from diocesan status to ministry partner status. This change enabled the Anglican Mission to be first a “missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda” and then a ministry partner with us. Two of their bishops, Doc Loomis and Terrell Glenn, have been named the regular representatives in Provincial Council and College of Bishops, and one of the Mission’s key priestly leaders, Ellis Brust, is also part of their Ministry Partner deputation at this meeting.

We rejoice at our partnership in the gospel. We rejoice that the Anglican Mission was the first to champion church planting as the way forward for Anglicans in the North American context. We rejoice that the AM is here with all our other Ministry Partners. A sign of the partnership shared with both the Anglican Mission and the Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas (a second Ministry Partner with congregations) is cooperation among our congregations, clergy and bishops at the local level, and the identification of all Anglican congregations, whether ACNA, AM or FACA in the Anglican Church’s church finder web tool, the most visited single feature of the Anglican Church website.

Archbishop Ian Ernest

Our global commitments remain strong and we continue to be seen as “gospel partners” and bearers of “authentic Anglicanism” (South-South Encounter IV) by most of the world’s Anglicans. The GAFCON Provinces accord our Province status as the North American Province and I am seated as a Primate in the Primates Council. I was privileged to be present at Archbishop Ian Ernest’s invitation at the All Africa Bishops Conference (of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) last August in Entebbe and was accorded a seat there for public and state events as one of the archbishops of the provinces. It is the greatest of joys to welcome Archbishop Ian Ernest – Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean and Chairman of CAPA – to this Provincial Council as speaker, observer and friend, and to our College of Bishops as Bible teacher and consultor. It is also a privilege to welcome Fr. Thomas Seville, CR, of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England here as participant and observer, in partial response to the action of the General Synod of the Church of England in February 2010 regarding consideration of an appropriate form of recognition or relationship with the Anglican Church in North America.

The Anglican Relief and Development Fund, the official relief and development arm of the Anglican Church in North America, is a significant aspect of our global commitment, and of the growing respect for us as true partners with Anglicans throughout the world. The Primates of Southern Cone, West Africa, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Sudan, Congo, and South East Asia (as well as of ACNA) all serve on ARDF’s Global Trustees. What is more is that national expressions of ARDF are beginning to emerge in developed countries beyond the U.S. and Canada. ARDF-Australia is the first to be fully formed, embracing the concept of objective philanthropy with measurable results piloted by ARDF-US, so that ever-more first-world Anglicans can invest in the sustainable transformation of the Global South in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Two years ago we were 706 congregations. The annual parochial and diocesan reports for 2010 – the first year for which we have a system of statistical reporting in place (another provincial milestone) – identify 952 congregations as part of the dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America and its ministry partners. Statistically this represents a 34 percent growth in congregations at the end of the first 18 months of Church life.

We focus on the centrality of local congregations as the “chief agency” of our mission in the Anglican Church in North America. [Article IV of the Constitution] If we are to “reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ” the principal way we will do this is through the local congregation. We say that every Anglican Church congregation is “accountable to the Holy Scriptures, accountable to the Tradition, and accountable for the transformation of society.”

We understand that congregations are where disciples are formed and that it is through congregations that surrounding environments are changed. We have a clarity about all of this – about the absolute centrality of congregations – that allows us to focus as a Province. Bishops, archbishops, dioceses, structures, programs all exist in order to make the local congregation strong. 

Read the entire address here.  

Justice not "seen to be done" - The Archbishop of Canterbury on the death of Osama bin Laden; Theologian N.T. Wright calls American actions "vigilantism"

From The Telegraph:

Dr Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the 80-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, criticised the White House for repeatedly changing its account of the raid on the al-Qaeda leader’s compound in Pakistan.

Killing bin Laden when he was not carrying a weapon meant that justice could not be “seen to be done,”  the Archbishop suggested.

Rowan Williams raises questions on bin Laden's death.

But lawyers and senior figures from politics and the military said Dr Williams was not living in “the real world” while relatives of 9/11 victims expressed outrage at his remarks.

A senior Government source described the Archbishop's comments as “very unwise”, adding: “One has to give some thought for all the unarmed people that bin Laden killed. This was a very silly thing to say.”

Dr Williams’s intervention represents the most outspoken statement so far by a mainstream religious leader since the US Navy Seals team stormed bin Laden’s hideout and killed the world’s most wanted man on Monday.

The row came during another day of developments in which the US was seen to change its account of the controversial special forces raid yet again.

US officials disclosed that just one of the five men killed in the operation was armed, contradicting the White House’s earlier picture of a continuous 40-minute shoot-out between special forces and terrorists.

Relations between the US and Pakistan worsened as Pakistani military chiefs demanded that America reduce its troop presence in the country to a “minimum”. After days of questions in Washington over how bin Laden could find shelter in the town of Abbottabad, army chief of staff General Ashfaq Kayani threatened to “review” cooperation with the US in the event of “any similar action “violating the sovereignty” of Pakistan.

President Barack Obama visited Ground Zero in New York, to meet relatives of those who died in the World Trade Centre attacks and lay a wreath. The President said bin Laden's death proved that America would never fail to bring terrorists to “justice”.

“When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say,” Mr Obama said. "We were going to make sure that the perpetrators of that horrible act - that they received justice.”

However, during a press conference at Lambeth Palace, Dr Williams questioned whether “justice” had been demonstrated by the US action.

“The killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done,” he said.

The White House’s “different versions of events” during the past week “have not done a great deal to help”, he said.

“I don’t know full details any more than anyone else does. But I do believe that in such circumstances when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal, in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed.”

Read it all here.

Has N.T. Wright "jumped the shark" from lofty position in academia?  Or has he forgotten there's a war going on?

UPDATE: Noted Anglican theologian and former bishop of Durham NT Wright has also written a piece critical of the United States actions against Osama bin Laden as well:

Consider the following scenario. A group of IRA terrorists carry out a bombing raid in London. People are killed and wounded. The group escapes, first to Ireland, then to the United States, where they disappear into the sympathetic hinterland of a country where IRA leaders have in the past been welcomed at the White House. Britain cannot extradite them, because of the gross imbalance of the relevant treaty. So far, this is not far from the truth.

But now imagine that the British government, seeing the murderers escape justice, sends an aircraft carrier (always supposing we’ve still got any) to the Nova Scotia coast. From there, unannounced, two helicopters fly in under the radar to the Boston suburb where the terrorists are holed up. They carry out a daring raid, killing the (unarmed) leaders and making their escape. Westminster celebrates; Washington is furious.

What’s the difference between this and the recent events in Pakistan? Answer: American exceptionalism. America is allowed to do it, but the rest of us are not. By what right? Who says?

Consider another fictive scenario. Gangsters are preying on a small mid-western town. The sheriff and his deputies are spineless; law and order have failed. So the hero puts on a mask, acts ‘extra-legally’, performs the necessary redemptive violence (i.e. kills the bad guys), and returns to ordinary life, earning the undying gratitude of the local townsfolk, sheriff included. This is the plot of a thousand movies, comic-book strips, and TV shows: Captain America, the Lone Ranger, and (upgraded to hi-tech) Superman. The masked hero saves the world.

Films and comics with this plot-line have been named as favourites by most Presidents, as Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence pointed out in The Myth of the American Superhero (2002) and Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil (2004). The main reason President Obama has been cheered to the echo across the US, even by his bitter opponents, is not simply the fully comprehensible sense of closure a decade after the horrible, wicked actions of September 11 2001. Underneath that, he has just enacted one of America’s most powerful myths.

Perhaps the myth was necessary in the days of the Wild West, of isolated frontier towns and roaming gangs. But it legitimizes a form of vigilantism, of taking the law into one’s own hands, which provides ‘justice’ only of the crudest sort. In the present case, the 'hero' fired a lot of stray bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan before he got it right. What’s more, such actions invite retaliation. They only ‘work’ because the hero can shoot better than the villain; but the villain’s friends may decide on vengeance. Proper justice is designed precisely to outflank such escalation.

Of course, ‘proper justice’ is hard to come by internationally. America regularly casts the UN (and the International Criminal Court) as the hapless sheriff, and so continues to play the world’s undercover policeman. The UK has gone along for the ride. What will we do when new superpowers arise and try the same trick on us? And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?

Ruth Gledhill's got it all here. The Rt. Rev'd Dr. N T Wright, formerly Bishop of Durham, is now the Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul elected to Primates Standing Committee

Yesterday the Anglican Communion Office announced that The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul, Archbishop of the Sudan, was elected to serve on the Primates Standing Committee representing all the provinces in Africa, even though he did not attend the Primates Meeting in Ireland.  Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was also re-elected representing the Americas, however she will not be attending the next meeting due to a scheduling conflict with the Episcopal House of Bishops.  It will be interesting to see how Bishop Schori responds to Archbishop Daniel at these meetings in the future.

Here Archbishop Daniel addresses the media at a press conference at Lambeth 2008 in the newsroom after Lambeth Conference officials would not grant him the use of the Press Conference facility.  The Episcopal Church worked hard to lobby the Sudanese bishops for Lambeth 2008, but to no avail. The Church in the Sudan would not be moved.

Anglican TV: Interview with Archbishop Venables

Archbishop Gregory Venables is interviewed by AnglicanTV's Kevin Kallsen where he discusses the recent Primates Meeting in Ireland.  I respect Bishop Venables very much - he was so kind at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury and worked hard to speak the Gospel in love those who were there. Yet I also have to say that I am concerned about the trajectory we are now on.

To paraphrase Romans 2, do we have any excuse, we who pass judgment on someone else?  Is it not true that whatever point we judge the other, are we not condemning ourselves, because we who pass judgment do the same things?  Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth, yes.  But when we, mere human beings that we are, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do we think that we will escape God's judgment ourselves?  Or do we show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not yet realizing that it's God's kindness that leads to repentance?

One of the major issues that we all wrestle with - that we (liberal and conservative) can identify with is quite frankly talked about in this recent sermon at Truro and I very much commend it to you.  If you can take a few minutes to listen, please do. Here is the link:



The speaker is Dr. Curt Thompson, M.D.

BREAKING NEWS: Bishop John W. Howe announces retirement as Bishop of the Diocese Central Florida

UPDATED:  The Bishop's Address is now available (see below).

The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida, the Rt. Rev'd John W. Howe, has announced his intention to retire in April 2012. and has called for the election of a bishop coadjutor.

Bishop Howe, a long time leader in the orthodox wing of the Episcopal Church, is one of the founders of the Communion Partners.  He was became the third Bishop of the Diocese of Central Florida in 1990.


Bishop Howe was ordained deacon in 1967, priest in 1968 and became Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Central Florida on April 15, 1989.  He earned a B.A. in philosophy, University of Connecticut, in 1964 and M. Divinity, Yale Divinity School, 1967. He was awarded Doctor of Divinity degrees from Yale in October 1989, from University of the South, Sewanee, in 1990 and from Nashotah House in 1991.

He was President of the University of Connecticut Christian Fellowship from 1962 to 1964, a staff member of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship 1964-69, and served as chaplain at both The Loomis School, Windsor, Connecticut, 1967-1969 and Miss Porter’s School, Farmington, Connecticut, 1969-72.

In 1972, Bishop Howe became Associate Rector, at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Sewickley (Diocese of Pittsburgh) serving from 1972 to 1976 and then was called as Rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia from 1976-1989. During that time, Truro grew in size to more than 3,000 members with an operating budget of over $3 million, half of which was spent on Missions and Outreach.

He was founding member of S.O.M.A. (Sharing of Ministries Abroad), an Anglican ministry seeking to bring renewal to indigenous churches, as well as one of of the founders of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.

A strong leader in prolife and church renewal movements, he has also sought to build bridges between diverse groups in the church.  “I am an evangelical in the tradition of John Stott, and my ministry has been one of building bridges between renewal-oriented Episcopalians and traditionalists, moderates and liberals,” Bishop Howe wrote when he stood for election to the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church in 2009.  His diocese has been noted for it's diversity, while still remaining a beacon for biblical teaching and a commitment to Lambeth 1.10.

He co-authored the 1988 Resolution on Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life adopted by the 69th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Detroit. He is former President and Chairman of the Board of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL) and he is a former president of the Fellowship of Witness.  In addition, he has served as the National Chaplain to the Order of the Daughters of the King which is made up of both TEC and ACNA chapters.

UPDATE: Here's an article just in from the Central Florida Episcopalian:

In the Bishop’s Address to the 42nd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida, Jan. 29, the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe announced his plan to retire in April 2012.

“I want to come directly to the point,” Bishop Howe told the group gathered at St. George Church and La Hacienda Recreation Center, The Villages, Florida. “The final episode of Star Trek, Next Generation was entitled ‘All Good Things…’ with the unmistakably hidden clause, ‘…must come to an end.' I have come to the conclusion that we are nearing such a moment.”

Bishop Howe called for the election of his successor, the Fourth Bishop of Central Florida, in a Special Convention to be held Nov. 19 at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando.

“These last two-plus decades of my life have been a roller coaster of joy and sorrow – but mostly joy – as we have seen God work in our midst in extraordinary ways,” Bishop Howe said. “I came here after 13-and-a-half years in one of the truly great congregations in The Episcopal Church.  And, as every Bishop will tell you, leaving your parish family behind is a very difficult thing to do.”

Bishop Howe stressed that, although the diocese will experience a change in leadership, the diocese should maintain the direction it has taken.

Bishop Howe specifically mentioned four projects mandated by the 40th Diocesan Convention, in 2009, that should help guide the diocese:

      Develop a Diocesan Strategic Plan – The resolution said, “It is the Vision of this Diocese to be fully committed to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission: to truly love God with all of our being and to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to obey everything that Jesus taught his original followers.”  The resolution set out five specific, measurable objectives for the years 2010 – 2012, which the diocese is in the process of implementing.

      Create a Contemporary Worship School – The diocese held the first of what leaders expect will be annual Contemporary Worship Conferences at the Canterbury Conference Center September 16 – 18, 2010.  The next one is scheduled for September 22 – 24, 2011.

      Create a set of “user friendly” tools for Short Term Mission Trips – This was accomplished, and is available in print, on CD, and online at the diocesan website.  Many congregations  have already used these tools, and others are planning to do so in the near future.

      Develop a Parish Discipleship Weekend – The resolution called for an in-house parish conference to call members of this Diocese to commit or recommit their lives to Jesus Christ and his kingdom, and to teach all of us how to live out a countercultural form of discipleship.

Under the direction of the Standing Committee, the search for Bishop Howe’s successor will begin immediately, and will include a diocesan survey, diocesan profile, nominations, background checks, election and consecration.

Bishop Howe and his wife, Deacon Karen Howe, plan to take a cruise through the Panama Canal soon after the consecration of the new bishop.

“I told the Standing Committee last month that my love for this Diocese is so exquisite that it hurts,” Bishop said in closing his address. “If I could somehow, miraculously, make it all happen all over again I would do so in a heartbeat. Thank you for honoring me, and supporting me, for these past 21-plus years. I love you, and I pray that as ‘all good things…’ begin to wind down they may wind up giving birth to even greater things in this great Diocese of Central Florida.”

The Diocese of Central Florida, based in Orlando, is a community of about 38,000 baptized members at 88 parishes and missions in 15 counties.


Here is Bishop Howe's Address to the Diocese of Central Florida:

The Bishop’s Address

The Forty-Second Annual Convention

of

The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida

Held in St. George Church and

La Hacienda Recreation Center

The Villages, Florida

January 29, 2011

The Right Reverend John W. Howe

All Good Things…

            “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:2)

Welcome to the Forty-Second Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central Florida!  It is good to be together again, and good to be back at St. George Church and The Villages.  We were last here in 2005, exactly a decade after St. George was admitted as an organized mission of the Diocese.  The planting, growth, ministry, and hospitality of this congregation have been among the great joys of my time in Central Florida.

So, thank you to Fr. Hugh Bromiley and all the good folks from St. George and, indeed, from around the Diocese, who have helped prepare for our time together.

Thanks, too, to Andrew Walker and all the musicians and singers who have supported our worship.

Coming to the Point

I want to come directly to the point.  The final episode of Star Trek, Next Generation was entitled “All Good Things…” with the unmistakably hidden clause, “…must come to an end.”
I have come to the conclusion that we are nearing such a moment.

I am hereby calling for the election of my successor, the Fourth Bishop of Central Florida, in a Special Convention to be held in the Cathedral Church of St. Luke on November 19, 2011.

A majority of the Diocesan Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church must then give their consents to that election within the following 120 days.  That will bring us into the middle of Lent, and I would like to remain “in the saddle” for one more Easter and through the 23^rd anniversary of my own consecration on April 15^th of next year.

(I have frequently commented that April 15^th can be remembered for at least four things: it was the day Lincoln died, the day the Titanic sank, the date of our annual visit to the tax collector, and the date of my consecration.  Somebody has thoughtfully called these “The Four Disasters”!)
Given all of those dynamics, we have tentatively set April 21, 2012 as the date for our next Bishop’s consecration.  We have arranged to do this in Calvary Assembly in Orlando, just as we did last time around.

And that is why I said we are nearing such a moment: it is not yet at hand.  We still have nearly a year and a half to go.  And I intend to be very much engaged as your Bishop until the laying on of hands and the passing of the crosier in that consecration service.  The new Bishop will take office immediately, and I will officially resign at that point – although I will be available to assist if he or she should desire that.

The Transition Process

The Transition Process is in the hands of the Standing Committee, and, immediately following this Address, I will ask Fr. Al Jenkins, President of the Standing Committee – thank you for re-electing him! – to outline as much of the Process as we can foresee at this point.  (For your information, the Standing Committee has asked me to join them for at least the majority of their meetings.  I have agreed to do so with two caveats: 1) if ever they need to meet alone they need only ask, and I will immediately withdraw, and 2) I will comment on their proceedings only if asked to do so.  It really is their Process.)

And let me mention that the first meeting of the Diocesan Board next month will be a special joint meeting with the Standing Committee to get everyone “on the same page.”

A Look Back

These last two-plus decades of my life have been a roller coaster of joy and sorrow – but mostly joy – as we have seen God work in our midst in extraordinary ways.

I came here after thirteen and a half years in one of the truly great congregations in The Episcopal Church.  And, as every Bishop will tell you, leaving your parish family behind is a very difficult thing to do.

The experience of being so deeply involved in the lives of parishioners and families in the midst of their great joys and their tragic disappointments, seeing them day in, day out, week after week, baptizing their children, preparing them for confirmation and marriage, praying with them in the midst of crisis, visiting them in hospital, conducting their funerals, mourning with them, and sharing the hope of the resurrection – is a privilege and an intimacy that I know no other profession can match.

My fellow clergy: we are indeed most fortunate people.

But to go from that to being in a different congregation every week is a shock!

It took us exactly one Sunday to realize that my family would not be accompanying me on my Visitation schedule!

But I knew God had called me here.  There were remarkable confirmations of that, not the least of which was the truly miraculous provision of our home here and the sale of our home in Virginia.  (Both are wonderful, long stories, which I will tell you sometime if you ask.)

And I also knew that those whom God calls he equips.

So I began to live into the very different structures of relationships in a vastly extended family in which the Bishop is “at home” in every one of those far-flung congregations.  There are a few deep relationships that develop in many of those congregations, and there is, of course, a very special relationship that the Bishop has with the clergy of the Diocese.

And, by the way, you know we have some of the finest clergy in the world.  Will you join me in giving thanks for them?

I also had to learn how to work with the Diocesan Board – which is a very different critter from a vestry!  I had one fellow on that first Board who said, “I’m going to be very up front with you: I’m going to let you know when I disagree, and I think that is going to be most of the time.”   (He doesn’t remember it that way, but that is pretty much the way I heard it.)

I think he was suspicious because he had heard I was a “charismatic.”  And he was greatly surprised when I visited his parish and told him that out of all the congregations I had visited his was the one most like the one I left behind!

Three days from now he will have been my Canon to the Ordinary for eighteen years.  A better friend and a better partner in the gospel you could not find.  Please join me in giving thanks for Canon Ernie Bennett.

The (rest of the) Diocesan Staff

I want to ask the other members of our staff to stand, and let me mention them by name: (hold your applause until I am done) The Venerable Kristi Alday, Archdeacon, Chuck Dunlap, Disaster Relief Coordinator, Deacon Karen Howe, Director of Cathedral Audio, Marilyn Lang, Secretary to Canon Bennett, Carolyn LaPointe, Financial Assistant, Eric Moulton, Youth Ministry Officer, Cindy Muldoon, Receptionist and Administrative Assistant, Earl Pickett, Diocesan Administrator, Joe Thoma, Communications Officer, and Melanie Walters, Secretary to the Bishop.  Let me tell you, they work tirelessly on behalf of all of us.  They will see something that needs to be done, and they will just do it.

Nobody asks, “Who is responsible for this?” – they just do it!  They are simply a wonderful group of people and a great team to work with.  Join me in giving thanks for them, as well.

Being a Bishop

I am often asked, “What is the best thing about being a Bishop?” and “What is the worst thing about being a Bishop?”  My answer always is: they are both the same!

A crisis develops in a parish: a disagreement between the Rector and the Vestry, some kind of financial mismanagement, a violation of boundary lines, a problem between a parish and its parochial school – or whatever.  A crisis: that’s the worst thing.  But the Bishop just showing up begins to give some hope: we’re not in this thing alone; someone has been here before, we can get a handle on it.  That’s the best thing.

Most of the time the folks in a local congregation are not very aware of the Bishop, the Diocesan machinery, or the Diocesan staff.  But at three major points in the life of a parish we become deeply involved.

First, when a congregation is being formed the Diocese is at least the midwife, if not the birth mother.  Becoming organized, raising finances, acquiring land, and building the first building is virtually never attempted without the help of the Diocese.

Second, when there is a change in the leadership of a parish the Bishop, the Canon, and the Diocesan staff come alongside the Vestry and the Search Committee, walking with them through every step in the process.

And third, as I have already mentioned, when there is a crisis of some kind the Bishop and the staff almost inevitably become involved.  We try to handle things as discreetly as possible, but we are right there in the middle of them.

For most of my time here we have been on an upward trajectory, and after splits in six of our congregations over “national issues” in 2008 and 2009, I believe we are greatly into recovery, and the arrows are moving forward and upward again.

Shepherd of the Hills

How wonderful it was to begin our time together this weekend with the welcoming of Shepherd of the Hills as a parish!  Exactly sixteen years ago yesterday we welcomed the congregation as an organized mission, but they hit a bump in the road in 2003.  Fr. Ladd Harris had retired to Florida, and he thought his ministry at Shepherd of the Hills was going to be singing in the choir!  Instead he became God’s man to lead the congregation through a wonderful recovery.

In the last twelve months they have simultaneously built a magnificent new building which is almost ready to be dedicated, called my good friend Bishop Jim Adams to be their Vicar and now their Rector, and achieved parish status!  Congratulations, and well done good and faithful servants!

As we begin this period of Diocesan transition it was not by accident that I asked Julian Linnell to be our preacher at the opening Eucharist.  We are about mission, and it would be hard to find someone whose ministry more fully epitomizes mission than does his.  Thank you, Julian, for reminding us so clearly that the mission of Jesus Christ remains at the very center of our calling.

It is also no accident that running parallel to this Convention the Department for Student Ministry is offering its “Town Hall” gathering for youth ministry leaders, Sunday school teachers, and Christian Education leaders.  Bringing our youth and young people into an informed commitment to Jesus Christ remains a central priority of this Diocese.

So, while over the next few months we will be preparing for a change in leadership I am totally committed to maintaining our direction.

Keeping On Keeping On

Two years ago the Fortieth Annual Convention of the Diocese passed Resolutions to take on four new projects:

      Develop a Diocesan Strategic Plan – which we did, and Convention adopted it almost unanimously last year.  We said, “It is the Vision of this Diocese to be fully committed to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission: to truly love God with all of our being and to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to obey everything that Jesus taught his original followers.”  We laid out five specific, measurable objectives for the years 2010 – 2012, which we are in the process of implementing.

      Create a Contemporary Worship School – which we did, and we held the first of what we expect will be annual Contemporary Worship Conferences at the Canterbury Conference Center September 16 – 18, 2010.  The next one is scheduled for September 22 – 24, 2011.

      Create a set of “user friendly” tools for Short Term Mission Trips – which we did.  It is available in print, on CD, and online at our diocesan web site.  Some of you have already used these tools, and others are planning to do so in the near future.

      Develop a Parish Discipleship Weekend – an in-house parish conference to call members of this Diocese to commit or recommit their lives to Jesus Christ and his kingdom, and to teach all of us how to live out a countercultural form of discipleship.

This one took longer than expected, but I am pleased to announce that the materials are ready at last, and I want to read from the Parish Discipleship Weekend Purpose Statement:

• “The purpose of the weekend is to provide an ‘on-campus’ retreat weekend (held at the facilities of the local church) that communicates the teachings of the Bishop’s Pastoral Letter of April 15, 2008, focusing on the prayer of Jesus Christ that we ‘live in the world but are not of the world.' "
• “The weekend is titled “Discipleship Weekend.’  However, rather than focusing on prayer and Bible study (which is often what ‘discipleship’ classes teach), this is deep discipleship.  It is ‘Discipleship 401,’ not ‘101.’  The weekend focuses on the Christian life rather than Christian belief.  This Discipleship Weekend calls us to holiness.
• “The Parish Discipleship Weekend will identify some of the values that are challenging the biblical Christian worldview, call participants to repentance for our complicity and adoption of those worldly values, and challenge participants to make a commitment toward change.”

I remind all of us that in calling for the development of this Weekend we also resolved that every congregation will hold such an on campus retreat, using these materials, sometime in the next two years.

My thanks, on behalf of all of us, to Fr. John Liebler and the members of the Parish Weekend Commission for the hard work that went into developing these materials.  (In all honesty, this was mostly John Liebler’s work: a gift of love from him to the Diocese.)  Please contact him directly to obtain the materials.  And please do use them.

I ended last year’s Address with these words: “Let’s keep on keeping on.  Let’s continue to make the main thing the main thing.  Let’s redouble our efforts to walk in love as Christ loved us.  Let’s talk to people about Jesus.  Let’s continue to plant new churches, strengthen existing ones, and do all we can to take Central Florida for Jesus Christ.”

I have no intention of loosening my grip on any of that vision and agenda.  And I ask you to recommit to it with me.

Our Work Today

I want to say a few things about our work today.  We have more resolutions before us than we have had for a number of years.  Some of these have been generated by changes in the Title IV “disciplinary canons” of the national Episcopal Church, and some seek to address ambiguities in our own Diocesan canons.

The current national disciplinary canons were patterned on the military code of justice.  And it was argued that the Church could do better than the military.  Perhaps so.  But it is my opinion that the new canons give far too much authority to the Bishop of a Diocese over his or her clergy, and they give unprecedented authority to the Presiding Bishop over the other Bishops of the Church – and there is a tremendous loss of “due process” in their implementation.

If a Diocesan Bishop, or the Presiding Bishop, is a wise and caring person there may be no danger in these new canons.  But I think there are few of us who might not be tempted to misuse the enhanced powers given to the Bishops and the Presiding Bishop to act against those with whom he or she disagrees.

I will tell you plainly: I do not want to have this enhanced authority given to me in my dealings with our clergy.  Nor do I welcome this intrusion into the life of our sovereign Diocese of the unprecedented authority of the Presiding Bishop.  (And I have told her so.)  It is a radical revision of the polity of The Episcopal Church from its inception.

So, we propose to do two things that are in tension with each other.  We propose to bring our Diocesan canons into compliance with the new national canons insofar as that is possible under the Constitution of The Episcopal Church.  But, at the same time, we ask that this Diocese memorialize the next General Convention to revisit Title IV in that it is inconsistent with the Constitution of The Episcopal Church.

The Constitution says that NO bishop – other than the Diocesan – NO bishop, including the Presiding Bishop, may intervene in the internal affairs of a Diocese, and the new canons say precisely the opposite.  The Constitution trumps the canons, so either it – or they – must be revised.

So, while all but one of the resolutions coming before us this afternoon may seem complicated, they are actually pretty straightforward: revise our canons for clarity and to be in conformity with the national canons, AND call upon General Convention to bring the national canons into conformity with the Constitution.

We can debate all of this if you like, but we really need to just pass the resolutions.  They have been very carefully crafted by our Constitution and Canons Committee, and reviewed by the Standing Committee in its role as Resolutions Committee for Convention.

The other resolution, R-1, is a Recommitment to Mission, and I hope we will pass it unanimously.

How Do You Know When it is Time?

Four years ago I told you of Karen’s congestive heart failure, and that I would retire when she needs me to do so.  Thankfully she is doing very well – and we are deeply grateful for your prayers in that regard – but occasionally she asks me, “And when, exactly, is that retirement you promised going to begin?”

I wrote to Bishop Folwell with the question, “How do you know when you are supposed to retire?”  He wrote back, “Years ago I asked Ernie Pugh the same question.  His answer was so simple and obvious when he said, ‘God will tell you when you include this question in your prayers.’”

That was a year ago last month.  I had not made it a matter of prayer until then, but since then it has been a matter of fervent prayer, and I am convinced of three things:

• It is in the best interest of the Diocese (and I have no doubt about that),
• It is in the best interest of my wife (and I have no doubt about that), and
• It is in the best interest of your Bishop (though it is one of the most difficult decisions I have ever made).

For several months I have had a statement from columnist Ellen Goodman posted on my bulletin board.  It says this:

“There’s a trick to the Graceful Exit.  It begins with the vision to recognize when a job, a life stage, a relationship is over – and to let go.  It means leaving what’s over without denying its validity or its past importance in our lives.

“It involves a sense of future, a belief that every exit line is an entry, that we are moving on, rather than moving out.

“The trick of retiring well may be the trick of living well.  It’s hard to recognize that life isn’t a holding action but a process.  It’s hard to learn that we don’t leave the best parts of ourselves behind, back in the dugout or the office.  We own what we learned back there.  The experiences and the growth are grafted onto our lives.  And when we exit, we can take ourselves along – quite gracefully.”

I told the Standing Committee last month that my love for this Diocese is so exquisite that it hurts!  If I could somehow, miraculously, make it all happen all over again I would do so in a heartbeat.  Thank you for honoring me, and supporting me, for these past twenty-one plus years.  I love you, and I pray that as “all good things…” begin to wind down they may wind up giving birth to even greater things in this great Diocese of Central Florida.

UPDATE: The CF Standing Committee has also announced the timeline for the call and election of the Bishop Coadjutor (via email):

January


Bishop Howe calls for the election of the 4th Bishop of Central Florida.


This is completed today.

February

The Committees for the Diocesan Profile and Transition Process are selected by the Standing Committee in consultation with the Deans and Deanery Presidents.
A planning retreat is then held for the Standing Committee,
the Profile Committee, and the Transition Committee.


You and/or members of your congregation may volunteer the first two weeks of February to participate in positions the Standing Committee needs to fill, but please remember we may not be able to place everyone who volunteers.

March

A Diocesan survey is prepared and sent to all delegates of this Convention
and it is made available to the entire Diocese of Central Florida. 


These surveys, with instructions, will help you, as an individual, state what you see as the future of the Diocese and how that should be reflected in the gifts, skills and vision of the next Bishop.

April

Deanery Forums are held by the Deans and Presidents of each Deanery.


These open discussions will help you, as Deaneries, create our Diocesan Profile. The Deans and Presidents will summarize these discussions with those in attendance and send the summaries to the Profile Committee.

May

The Profile is prepared from the surveys and Forums.


The Profile is a collation of the information received from the surveys and the Forums that describes
a brief overview of 1) our Diocese, and 2) the kind of Bishop desired by the people of the Diocese.

June

The Profile and nomination instructions are sent to the Convention delegates.


The delegates of the Convention will serve, in effect, as the Search and Nominating Committees.

July - August

Nominations are received.


The Standing Committee receives the nominations. Nominations received in accordance with the nominating instructions, and nominees who have passed a background examination, will be placed in nomination at the electing Convention.

This process is entirely open to anyone meeting the nomination standards and the background check standards.

September – October

Background checks are done.

November


Election at the Cathedral, Saturday, November 19.
Profile and background information for all nominees will be available on the Diocesan website.

The delegates of this Convention will be the delegates at the electing Convention.
The first ballot will determine the final slate of the nominees.

April 21, 2012

Consecration of the 4th Bishop of Central Florida
at Calvary Assembly, Orlando
followed by
the Retirement of Bishop John W. Howe.

Church of England endorses the Anglican Covenant

From here:

In 1867 the Archbishop of York turned down the invitation to the first Lambeth Conference because it wasn’t a manifestation of Anglicanism that he recognised. In London today the General Synod of the Church of England debated whether or not the proposed Anglican Covenant is recognizably Anglican and an appropriate development for our times.

At the end of a three-hour debate it voted overwhelmingly, by a majority greater than two thirds in all three houses (bishops, clergy and laity), to move to the next stage in the adoption of the Covenant.

Even if the vote was decisive, questions remain regarding the degree of consensus that the Covenant will sit comfortably within the Church of England. In the weeks leading up to this Synod the blogosphere has been the scene of a massive debate.

It began with two influential liberal networks, Inclusive Church and Modern Church (formerly the Modern Churchpeople’s Union), buying advertising space in the Church Times to warn that the Covenant is punitive, against the spirit of Anglicanism and a threat to the autonomy of the Church of England. Later came a declaration from the Anglican Mainstream network that the Covenant was not strong enough to provide the assurances needed by conservative evangelicals. Neither prevailed today.

A day ahead of the debate the Archbishop of Canterbury used his presidential address to make what was undoubtedly the decisive intervention in the Covenant debate. He cited a famous sermon by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, on “The Catholic Spirit,” which “is neither a climate of imposed universal agreement nor a free for all.”

He continued: “Wesley wants us to be settled in the basics of the faith, ‘fixed as the sun’ in our allegiance to the creed and the doctrine of a free and God-given atonement for sin.” This however is “consistent with readiness to hear arguments against what we believe without panic... [and] consistent with the knowledge that opinions vary even when doctrines are shared.”

Coming directly to the proposed Covenant he said: “It is an illusion to think that without some changes the Communion can carry on as usual, and a great illusion to think that the Church of England can somehow derail the entire process. The uncomfortable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all.”

The Covenant, he said, “offers us the possibility of a voluntary promise to consult. And it also recognizes that even after consultation there may still be disagreement.... To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognize that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly.”

Opening the Covenant debate the Bishop of Bristol, Mike Hill, said it was an invitation for “member churches to commit themselves to greater mutual accountability, consultation and the pursuit of consensus on issues which are new or controversial and may have serious relational consequences for the Communion.”

Speaking in support the Rev. Simon Cawdell of Hereford said the Covenant offers “the best definition of Anglicanism that there is.”

Dr. Paul Fiddes, a Baptist observer, said the Independent tradition in the British Isles had lots of experience with covenant making but as yet has not sought to apply this in the international sphere. “I would like to thank the Anglican Communion for taking the Covenant further than we have done.”

The Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Rt. Rev. Peter Price, insisted that the Covenant process was underway well before the election of Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. He referred to an Anglican Consultative Council document, Belonging Together (1992), which had a direct influence on The Virginia Report, much of which formed the basis of Covenant drafts.

Traditional Catholics, in the persons of the Bishop of Blackburn and the Rev. Simon Killwick (leader of the Catholic Group), signalled support for the Covenant as a means to provide greater coherence and integrity in Anglicanism.

A succession of speakers aired doubts. Would the Covenant undermine the autonomy of the Church of England or its prophetic spirit? Some thought that Covenant language like “relational consequences” spells a legalistic threat. Foremost among the doubters was the soon-to-retire Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, who thought a Covenant is unnecessary since “Anglicanism is a covenant.”

Canon Elizabeth Paver, a member of the Anglican Communion’s Standing Committee, introduced a note of realism: in practice the Covenant will advise, never dictate; and it is vital that the Church of England “give some leadership” on the matter.

Now the Covenant will be considered by diocesan synods. Under the Constitution of the Church of England they cannot amend it, only attach following motions. The last word on the subject has therefore not been said. The position of the Church of England should be clear by the time the ACC meets in 2012.

Read it all here. Meanwhile, a group of GAFCON primates has shot the Anglican Covenant down, releasing their statement on the same day that the Covenant was endorsed by the CoE Synod.  To say that BB smashed a few glasses and plates in the cafe kitchen after reading the GAFCON primates press release is an understatement.

The Anti-Anglican Covenant Lobbyists get organized

Or at least they have a website - and yes, it's the usual suspects. They write, "we predict that the covenant text itself could become the cause of future bickering and that its centralized dispute-resolution mechanisms could beget interminable quarrels and resentments."  Now isn't that pretty?  Sounds like a good reason to just stop voting all together.

Frankly, what's more interesting at this point is not who is listed - which again is predictable (do they ever recruit new people or just keep rehashing themselves into spanking brand new lobby groups over and over and over again?) - no, rather, what is more interesting at this point is who is NOT listed - at least not yet.  Watch that space very carefully. Check it all out here.  And please pass the Geritol.

Tip of the Tinfoil to SS.  Thanks! 

SATURDAY UPDATE: Gregory Cameron responds to the lobbyists in England who took out an ad in the Church Times:

From the Bishop of St Asaph

Sir, — There was a very curious document in last week’s Church Times (full-page advertisement, page 7). In it, two organisations, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, for which I have formerly had the highest regard, turned themselves into the nearest to an ecclesiastical BNP that I have encountered.

They resort to the old tactics of misinformation and scaremongering about foreigners and outside influences to whip up a campaign against the Anglican Covenant, and replace reasoned argument with a “Man the barricades!” mentality that is little short of breathtaking.

We are to beware, the advertise­ment says, of the machinations of “another Anglican province any­where in the world” and of a move “to subordinate the Church to the judgements of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Com­munion. [The Covenant] would thereby make the Church of England subject to an outside power for the first time since Henry VIII.”

The main target of their opprobrium, worse than a European Commission or a Spanish Inquisi­tion, is “a new international body, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion”. In fact, this body is the same Joint Standing Committee that has muddled through the business of Anglican Communion affairs now since 1969. It is scarcely new — even if it was given its new name by a two-thirds-majority vote of Anglican provinces ratified at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica in 2009.

And the most extreme power at the Standing Committee’s disposal under the Covenant is — wait for it — “to make recommendations” (4.2.7). It is this potential for shock “recommendations” that has Inclusive Church and MCU quaking in their boots, since they argue that any such “recommendations” will “subordinate [the General Synod] to the new centralised authorities”. In fact, the Covenant text clearly says: “Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations” (4.2.7).

The Covenant also states quite clearly that “mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance. The Covenant does not grant to any one Church or any agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church of the Anglican Communion” (4.1.3).

Like so much else in this advertise­ment (and I could offer an extensive list), the assertion is simply rubbish.

During the past 150 years, many of the Churches of the world have been formed into Christian world com­munions; the newest was formed this year, the World Communion of Reformed Churches. There is a general recognition that if local or national Churches are to be truly international and live in a global fellowship, they must do more than just assert their autonomy, but seek to live into an interdependence that truly honours the fellowship of the whole body. This truth was recog­nised by the Lambeth Conferences of 1920 and 1930, and the Covenant is a careful attempt to balance autonomy with responsibility.

There is no element of coercion anywhere in the text, but there is an acknowledgement that neither can everything that one Church does be foisted on the whole Communion without the recognition that relations can be damaged. What the Covenant sets out in Section 4 is a proper mechanism that allows the articulation of discomfort, even distance, but which honours autonomy.

But this is too much for our latter-day Little Englanders, who bemoan the passing of the armchair bonhomie of the Athenaeum as the measure of Anglican inclusivity. They would, it seems, rather see the disintegration of the Anglican Communion into a series of acrimonious factions than restate a common faith and witness and find grown-up and responsible mechanisms for the articulation of the life of a whole Communion.

Well, I suppose they’re entitled to their opinion, but I do wish that they wouldn’t resort to scaremongering and the misrepresentation of a text in an attempt to swing the debate.

GREGORY K. CAMERON
Secretary to the Anglican
Communion Covenant Design Group 2006-09
Esgobty, Upper Denbigh Road
St Asaph LL17 0TW

Read it all here.