A HUGE DEBT OF GRATITUDE

       
    
         THANK YOU!

...to everyone who participated in General Convention 2012 of the Episcopal Church.  Although the time period for you to accomplish your tasks was compressed, you completed your work and served our church admirably.  Those of us who were not in attendance owe you a huge debt of gratitude for your dedication and fortitude in facing the difficult challenges.  May God bless you and give you rest, refreshment, and peace.

PRAYER FOR GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH & FOR GENERAL SYNODS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN AOTEAROA, NEW ZEALAND & POLYNESIA AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, be present with those who take counsel in General Convention and two General Synods for the renewal and mission of your Churches. Teach us in all things to seek first your honor and glory. Guide us to perceive what is right, and grant us both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (The Book of Common Prayer)

Note: I added the Church of England General Synod to our prayers.

DAVID CHILLINGWORTH, PRIMUS OF THE SEC ON THE ANGICAN COVENANT

Bishop David Chillingworth: "You may have seen the article which I provided for the Church Times following the decision of our General Synod not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. Just in case you missed it, here it is."

At our recent General Synod, the Scottish Episcopal Church, decided by a clear majority not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. In 2011, Synod had discussed the Covenant in Indaba session. It was clear then that a decision to adopt was unlikely.

We tried hard to keep the issue open.  I believe that the Anglican Covenant is an honourable attempt to heal our brokenness. But some time ago, as I set out to address yet another meeting in my diocese, I confided to my blog that I was going to listen to the most committed Anglicans on the planet telling me why they didn’t like the Anglican Covenant. Put simply, they believed that the Covenant is un-Anglican.

The Scottish Episcopal Church holds tenaciously to its commitment to the Anglican Communion. I see three reasons for that.

First, it's our size - to a small church, it matters that we belong to something bigger. Then there is a reason which is proprietorial and slightly presumptuous - we invoke the memory of Samuel Seabury, consecrated in 1784 by the Scottish bishops as the first bishop of the church in the United States of America. We like to believe that we were in at the beginning. We want to be part of the bringing to birth of a new phase of Communion life. Finally and more subtly, our particular attitude to authority - rooted in the collegiality of a College of Bishops - finds an echo in the Anglican Communion' aspiration to dispersed rather than centralised authority.

We approached this decision with great care and with some apprehension. We too are a diverse church. We have congregations who see the Anglican Covenant as important and necessary for their security within our church.  This decision has called on our reserves of internal trust. Those congregations needed to know that, whether or not we adopted the Covenant, we intend to take a measured and respectful approach to our diversity. But therein lies the first of the problems. The Covenant addresses what it sees primarily as inter-provincial disagreement. But its effect may actually be to heighten intra-provincial tensions.

Provinces will continue to consider the Covenant and come to their own decisions. The Anglican Communion will continue to seek unity in an astonishing diversity of culture and context across the world. It already has structures and processes through which we build communion life. There are the four Instruments of Communion. There are networks - family, environment and others. There is the Anglican Alliance.  There is Continuing Indaba - for which I serve as Chair of the Reference Group. There are Diocesan Companionship Links.

But we need a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges. We also need to recognise that no single measure can address them all.

The genesis of the Anglican Covenant lay in the Windsor Report - which arose from the development of conflict around issues of human sexuality. In my experience, conflict is almost never 'single issue'. It is a complex of issues which sometimes don't quite match in a directly adversarial way. And the passion with which those conflicts are experienced tells us that other issues are in play. It's about more than the 'presenting question'. Let me suggest two other issues which are part of this.

The first is one to which we are tangentially linked through the Seabury story - it is the legacy of history. The sharp word is colonialism. People assert independence of thought and action more strongly - challenge authority more resolutely - when relationships are shaped and conditioned by the legacy of history. In the Anglican Communion, that history affects interactions between the New World and the old world and between the developed and the developing world. The challenge is to build an Anglican Communion which transcends its history - a post-colonial Communion.

At the Primates Meeting in Dublin last year, I learnt that another of the great diversities of Communion life is in our understanding of authority. A bishop in the Church of England does not exercise authority as we do in Scotland - different again in America and in Nigeria and in Hong Kong. That diversity enriches but it has led to misunderstanding and disappointment in one another.

I believe that a new understanding of the problems we face is needed. By challenging the legacy of history, new axes of relationship will be encouraged. We shall be better able to address the deeply adversarial divisions which gather around the human sexuality issues. Communion grows when we share together in mission, grow together as disciples and act with a self-discipline which is the foundation of unity in diversity.

Our Communion is a gift to the world - a global institution which aspires to exist largely without centralised authority and to celebrate its rich diversity. Such a Communion models things which are important for the world community. Such a Communion is attractive in mission because it has learned to transcend conflict. I believe that we now have a historic opportunity to reshape the Anglican Communion so that it may become an instrument of God's mission to the world in the next generation.

As General Convention of the Episcopal Church begins, and the Anglican Covenant is on the agenda, I thought Bishop David's article was worth posting in its entirety. My hope is that we join the Scottish Episcopal Church, the dioceses in the Church of England, and the House of Bishops in the Anglican Church in the Philippines to vote a firm "no" to adoption of the Anglican Covenant.

GC12, RESTRUCTURING, BUDGET, AND RESTRUCTURING BY BUDGET

My head is spinning from reading posts about General Convention and what will take place in Indianapolis - about budgets, restructuring, and restructuring by budget.  Neither budgets nor restructuring institutions is my particular area of interest,  nor are they my areas of expertise.  From the viewpoint of a humble person in the pew, my overall impression is of a tug of war over diminishing resources between those in favor of further centralization and those who wish to retain ideals of a church that functions with a measure of democracy.  I freely admit that my overall picture may, indeed, be distorted, but I am trying to understand the present situation in the church as best I can.

By default, I lean in favor of democratic ideals and practices.  That's not to say that I wish to get rid of bishops, because I do not.  What I'd like from the bishops is that they view themselves as servants of all in their particular dioceses, and for the Presiding Bishop to view her/himself as the servant of the whole church.  "It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant..."

Since I have little expertise and knowledge in the areas I mention, I refer you to others who know much more than I.  I'll attempt to place the posts in the order I read them, not necessarily in the order they were written.  I urge you to read the posts to which I link in their entirety.   Judging them by my brief quotes will not do the authors justice.

First of all is the crie de coeur from Katie Sherrod, who serves on the Executive Committee of TEC.  Katie was a pillar of strength in the continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth after the schism.

I left that meeting deeply troubled, not by the criticism the Council was getting – I’ve been a writer for newspapers and television much too long to get my feelings hurt by criticism. What troubled me was that leaders I admire and trusted seemed to me to be acting in confusing ways – saying things that were contradicted by their actions.  Again and again they urged Council to see that ministry is carried out as “close to the ground” as possible and by those people who can do it best, which is usually lay people in congregations across the church. Yet what they keep doing is to try to operate from a top-down model.

I began to pray for clarity and guidance.

Much of the rest of the commentary seemed to me to bounce off Katie's heartfelt post.

Tobias Haller weighs in with "Storms and Structure":

So my appeal, brothers and sisters, is that of Jesus, “Peace, be still.” Most importantly, can we focus on actual proposals and legislation free from any attributions of motive or power-play, and judge them on their merits? Could we take a breath , count to ten, and refocus our attention from the ad hominem to the substance of the tasks actually at hand, with less of a sense of urgency and panic and apocalyptic? Think for a moment about just how much the decisions on the budget, and the resolutions of General Convention will touch your parish, or your ministry, for good or ill. Stop trying to solve all the problems and save the world. Jesus did that already. He is asleep in the stern. We can do our part to assist in that ministry and mission, but our efficiency at that task is seriously encumbered by panic and busyness that accomplishes little work. Can we begin by trusting each other rather than assuming the worst? Can we approach our work as colleagues rather than as adversaries? 

Then Muthah+ at Stone of Witness:

Often times our bishops get in the habit of ‘doing for’ others rather than doing things ‘with others.’  And here lies the problem.  It is all too easy to for clergy to do something themselves that they think is a wonderful solution and present it to the rest of the church only to find that it isn’t accepted.  Then we are likely to think the people ungrateful when it is not received joyfully.  But it is the process that has been ignored.  It is the listening that has not been appealed to.  The process of becoming community in the production of that budget is what has been lost.  The process has not produced “Church” that sense of community that makes us all members in the same standing. 

Other posts caught my interest, but you have enough homework for now.  I will probably post again with more links to similar subject matter.

OUR MAN MALCOLM IN THE ANGLICAN JOURNAL

The Rev Malcolm French, Moderator of NACC

From the Anglican Journal in Canada:

An international coalition of Anglicans [No Anglican Covenant Coalition] hopes a model resolution to reject the Anglican Communion Covenant will be accepted by The U.S. Episcopal Church at its General Convention in Indianapolis in July.

The covenant was intended to be an agreement to bind the global Anglican Communion together despite differences about the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of bishops in same-sex relationships.

The coalition's resolution declines to approve the covenant and claims there are better ways to unify the Anglican Communion. It calls on the church to “at every level to seek opportunities to reach out to strengthen and restore relationships between this church and sister churches of the Communion.”

The covenant was never intended to bind the churches in the Anglican Communion together, but rather to discipline the churches in the Communion which strayed from the straight and narrow path by extending equality to all members of the church without exclusions because of sexual orientation.

The resolution submitted to the TEC General Convention 2012 is numbered D007.  "French here.  Malcolm French."

NACC RESOLUTION FILED AT TEC GENERAL CONVENTION 2012

D007 TOPIC:

Response to the Anglican Covenant

PROPOSER
Russell, The Rev. Cn. Susan
 

ENDORSED BY

Hopkins, The Very Rev. Michael; Lee, Ms. Lelanda

SPONSORED BY

Buchanan, The Rev. Susan; Engstrom, The Very Rev. Marilyn; Gracey, Mr. R. Stephen; Hart, Mr. Christopher; Kandt, Mrs. Pamela; Leigh , Ms. Robyn; Moore, The Rev. Stephen; Russell, The Rev.Michael; Shaw, The Rev. Lee; Williams, Ms.Sandra; Bronson Sweigert, The Rev. Cynthia

RESOLUTION TEXT

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 77th General Conventiongive thanks to all who have worked to increase understanding and strengthen relationships among the churches of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention reaffirm the commitment of this church to the fellowship of autonomous national and regional churches that is the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention recognizes that sister churches of the Anglican Communion are properly drawn together by bonds of affection,  in the common mission of the gospel, and by consultation withoutcoercion or intimidation; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention, having prayerfully considered the merits of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant and believing said agreement to be contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and tradition and to the best interests of the Anglican Communion, respectfully decline to adopt the same; and be it further

Resolved, That the General Convention call upon the leaders of The Episcopal Church at every level to seek opportunities to reach out to strengthen and restore relationships between this church and sister churches of the Communion.

EXPLANATION

Churches of the Anglican Communion have been asked to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant. The suggestion for such an agreement was made in the 2004 Windsor Report, which recommended "theadoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit andforceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between churches of the Communion."

The Windsor Report was produced at the request of Primates upset with the impending consecration of GeneRobinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and the promulgation of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions bythe Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, of the Anglican Province of the West Indies, was entrusted with leading thedevelopment of the first draft of a covenant. This same Archbishop Gomez was one of the editors of "To Mendthe Net", a collection of essays dating from 2001 and advocating enhancing the power of the Anglican Primates to deter, inter alia, the ordination of women and "active homosexuals," as well as the blessing of same-sexunions. Archbishop Gomez's punitive agenda remains evident in the final draft of the proposed Covenant.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant attempts to create acentralized authority that would constrain the self-governance of The Episcopal Church and other churches of the Communion. This unacceptable inhibits Communion churches from pursuing the gospel mission as they discern it.

The Church of England has already declined to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines has indicated that they will not support the Covenant, andthe rejection of the Covenant by the Tikanga Maori of the Anglican Church in Aoteroa, New Zealand andPolynesia renders it virtually certain that those churches will also decline to adopt.

The deficiencies of the proposed Covenant would lead to an Anglican Communion further divided rather thanmore unified. Declining to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant not only avoids permanent,institutionalized division, it opens the way for new opportunites to build relationships across differencesthrough bonds of affection, by participation in the common mission of the gospel, and by consultation without coercion or intimidation.

IGNORE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT AT GENERAL CONVENTION?

Here I am banging on again about the pernicious Anglican Covenant. I'd heard murmurings, which are now more than murmurings, because the talk is now very public, of a move to introduce a resolution at General Convention to ignore the covenant.  Yes, indeed, it's true.  Lionel Diemel says:

One proposed strategy for General Convention is for the church only to affirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion, saying nothing at all about the Anglican Covenant.

Our courageous sisters and brothers in the Church of England, the 'mother' church, faced down the opposition of two archbishops, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, and 79.79% of the bishops in the church to defeat the covenant in the Church of England.  And yet it is suggested that we in The Episcopal Church ignore the covenant.  I don't understand.

Not only do I see such a resolution as cowardly, but, seconding Lionel Diemel, as arrogant.  The Episcopal Church is often criticized for its individualism, for 'going its own way' without regard for other churches in the Anglican Communion, and such a resolution from GC would only reinforce the opinion that TEC is insufficiently community minded.  As I see it, to ignore the covenant, to pretend that it's not there, would be an insult to all the churches who have taken a stand, whether the vote was to adopt, accede to, subscribe to, give an 'amber light' to, or reject the covenant.  Further, to ignore the covenant would be an affront to all the churches which will declare a position on the covenant in the future.  The proponents of the covenant might very well view ignoring the covenant as worse than rejecting the covenant.

I've heard justifications for the stance of pretending the covenant is not there run the gamut from a desire to stay at the table to a fervent wish to continue in relationship with other churches in the communion.  I want those things, too, and I contend that the concerns are unjustified, especially now that the covenant has been rejected in the Church of England. Is the Church of England still at the table?  Will the Church of England continue in relationships with churches in the communion?  The vote by the English church to reject the covenant is a major game changer.  Shall we also pretend that the rejection didn't happen?

Read our English friend Lay Anglicana, and watch the video posted by Laura, who strove mightily to defeat the Anglican Covenant in England, and see if you still think ignoring the covenant is a viable option.  I could name many other English friends who worked tirelessly to bring down the same odious document that some in TEC will ask the convention to ignore.
 
From Lay Anglicana:

But word reaches me that these good manners may stand in the way of common sense at the TEC General Convention to be held from July 5-12 in Indianapolis: agreeing with me that the current ‘sorry state of things entire’ of the Anglican Covenant is such that it definitely counts as unpleasant, and being unwilling to intrude on private grief,  some say it might be best not to discuss it all, and simply sweep it under the carpet.

Siren voices! Please, fellow Anglicans, do not listen to them! We have managed in the Church of England, diocesan synod by painful diocesan synod, to reject it. But the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion regards this as merely a little local difficulty. Is he burying his head in the sand like the man in the YouTube video which illustrates this post? That is a matter of opinion.

Hear, hear!