Wednesday, June 9, 2010

LETTER TO THE PRESIDING BISHOP FROM INCLUSIVE CHURCH IN ENGLAND

Inclusive Church sends an open letter to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

09 June 2010

Dear Bishop Katharine,

We rejoice that in your Pentecost Letter the Episcopal Church has reaffirmed its strong affirmation of gay and lesbian people as part of God's good creation and your continued commitment to recognising, led by the Spirit, that God is calling and fitting gay and lesbian people to be ordained leaders of the Church.

We regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested in his letter to the Anglican Communion that The Episcopal Church should not be a participant in Ecumenical Dialogue on behalf of the Communion and should serve only as consultants on IASCUFO. The Archbishop may experience ecumenical partners saying they "need to know who it is they are talking to” but our experience is of ecumenical partners saying we are carrying forward this difficult discernment process for the whole church, that they have similar or more contentious issues to deal with themselves, and that they are appreciative of the open way we are facing this issue.

We do not support the Archbishop's position that only those in agreement with the majority view can be participants as Anglicans in ecumenical dialogue or for that matter any other representative body of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, the Episcopal Church's diligence in undertaking "deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research” with gay and lesbian people, as resolved at the 1978 Lambeth Conference, and in upholding their human rights, as emphasised at the 1988 Lambeth Conference, has been in marked contrast to the position of other provinces whose status as representative participants is unchallenged. We ask you to have the courage, commitment and humility to "remain at the table" not just until you are asked to leave but indeed until the table is removed from you. We recognise this is asking you to be in an uncomfortable place but the self-denial being asked of you is not for a gracious withdrawal but a silencing of voices that need to be heard.

The 1979 Anglican Consultative Council Resolution on Human Rights specifically called on member churches "to rigorously assess their own structures, attitudes and modes of working to ensure the promotion of human rights within them, and to seek to make the church truly an image of God's just Kingdom and witness in today's world”. In 1990 the ACC resolution on Christian Spirituality urged "every Diocese in our Communion to consider how through its structures it may encourage its members to see that a true Christian spirituality involves a concern for God's justice in the world, particularly in its own community”. We recognise that developments in the life of the Episcopal Church have been in line with and, in part, a response to this call.

In 2005 The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada were asked to withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council. Inclusive Church appealed to you not to accede to this request. We argued that "The Anglican Consultative Council, consisting of Bishops, Clergy and Laity is currently the most representative body in the Anglican Communion; were you to withdraw your participation it would no longer be a fully representative body. It is our belief that your actions, taken in response to the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian people and the justice of their claim to full participation in the life of the church, do not justify the breaking of "the bonds of communion” or any moves to exclude you from the conciliar life of the Communion. On the contrary it means you bring to the Anglican Consultative Council experience and counsel that would otherwise be absent and without which the Anglican Communion can not progress to a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding sexuality or ever achieve reconciliation."

We hold to that view still today and ask that you resist this process of excluding those Provinces of the Communion most committed to the visible inclusion of all Anglicans in the life of the Church. This process and the proposed Anglican Covenant are not building unity, they are turning disagreement into institutionalised disunity - even inventing mechanisms of exclusion to facilitate the process.

To agree to a voluntary self exclusion would not be to agree to a self- denying ordinance for the good of the whole. Gay Anglicans are part of the Anglican Communion in every province. Some are facing persecution by their own churches because of their courageous witness. By remaining at the table, the Episcopal Church has the opportunity to remind those who serve on representative bodies of their existence and to raise their voice. We ask that you resist this misguided process that is formally excluding those who speak for people the Communion should urgently be seeking to include.
(My bolding)

Yours sincerely,

Canon Giles Goddard

Chair, Inclusive Church

I believe that we must pay close attention to this plea from Inclusive Church, especially to the words which I have bolded. LGTB members and their supporters in many of the churches in the Anglican Communion and Christian churches outside the Anglican Communion see the Episcopal Church as a lifeline, as a leader in promoting what we are required to do in the words of the prophet Micah.

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Micah 6:8

And in the words of Jesus.

‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12

I am convinced that in any decisions about our relationship with the Anglican Communion, those of us in the Episcopal Church must give great weight to the situation of our brothers and sisters outside our church, where no meaningful discussions of justice for LGTB persons in the church occur, but especially to those in churches in which the leadership not only does not speak against the persecution of LGTB persons, but whose leaders actually promote their persecution. In other words, our decisions are not simply about us but have far-ranging consequences.

H/T to Thinking Anglicans for the link to the letter.

10 comments:

  1. If I were an Anglican in England I might wonder whether there is a method of joining the Episcopal church in an act of solidarity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DP, what puzzles me is the silence of so many in the Church of England. Because of the relative silence, the ABC is able to play his game of pretend. I have a vision of a grand coming out day in England of all gay clergy, partnered and unpartnered, along with their numerous straight supporters in numbers that would stun Rowan into reality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Grandmère Mimi, you are absolutely right about abandoning our brethren, but I suspect you may be wrong about Rowan Who. I think he knows perfectly well, but being an Anglo-phobic Roman Catholic he really doesn't care what happens to the C of E.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wade, you're right, too. Rowan knows, but his main focus seems to be on becoming the first Anglican pope. But if loud voices were heard in England, he couldn't hide behind pretense any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do hope somebody tells "Brenda" what's going on in her Church.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wade, this time I don't need to ask who "Brenda" is. Yay! I hear that "Brenda" may have views about teh gays with which you and I may not agree. Of course, that's just hearsay. I don't know for sure. Actually, we've never met.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When I hear that TEC needs to help the liberals in CofE, this is the sort of thing needed.

    More, TEC needs an invitation. Whether it's right or wrong, Christian or un-Christian, TEC is not going to do anything without an invitation from actual CofE clergy, and that's going to require real risk.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark, I don't think we'll see any church planting in England by the Episcopal Church.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Probably not. Which is something of a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An important letter - thanks for posting it.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.