With thanks to the Deputies of the Diocese of Southeast Florida!
Myth: General Convention Deputies are delegates representing the diocese.
Fact: General Convention Deputies are deputies not delegates. They represent a diocese, but are deputized to make educated voting decisions not based on a constituency in their diocese, but based on their prayerful consideration of each question and issue and the dictates of their conscience.
Myth: The Episcopal Church has not complied with the Windsor Report.
Fact: The Episcopal Church has complied with more of the recommendations of the Windsor Report than any other branch of the communion.
Myth: The 38 Primates are the authority of the Anglican Communion.
Fact: The Primates are one instrument of unity in the Anglican Communion. While they have some moral authority, they have no formal legislative or executive authority or power over any part of the communion beyond their own individual provinces. The other instruments of unity are The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council. None of these entities has formal "authority" or power over the provinces. Each province is fully autonomous and fully self-governing.
Myth: The 38 primates requested the Windsor Report.
Fact: The Archbishop of Canterbury, not the primates, requested the Windsor Report.
Myth: The Episcopal Church can be kicked out of the Anglican Communion (AC) by the primates.
Fact: There is no formal provision for any of the instruments of unity to exclude member churches from their body. The Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada were asked to voluntarily withdraw from some deliberative bodies of the Communion to allow time and space for healing. The Archbishop of Canterbury determines who is invited to the Lambeth Conference which takes place every ten years. Only the Archbishop of Canterbury can declare a church out of communion with the Anglican Communion.
Myth: Actions from the 2006 General Convention can get The Episcopal Church kicked
out of the AC.
Fact: While some within the Anglican Communion argue that decisions made by General Convention might result in the Episcopal Church removing itself from the Anglican Communion, only an overt declaration to that effect by both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops or a clear statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury so stating could have that result.
Myth: General Convention 2006 can undo General Convention 2003’s approval of the election of V. Gene Robinson to the episcopacy.
Fact: General Convention 2006 cannot undo General Convention 2003’s approval of the election of V. Gene Robinson to the episcopacy. Gene Robinson was duly elected by the Diocese of New Hampshire, his election duly certified by General Convention and he was consecrated by more than three bishops of the Episcopal Church who are themselves in good standing and in the apostolic line.
Myth: The Episcopal Church is the only member of the Anglican Communion that supports gays and lesbians as full participants of the church.
Fact: Canada, Great Britain, South Africa, New Zealand (to name four others), also support gays and lesbians as full participants of the church. NOTE: Caution is required when characterizing the position of Great Britain. While a person who identifies him or herself as gay or lesbian can exercise priestly ministry, they must confirm that they are living in celibacy. The Church of England officially does not permit those living openly gay lifestyles to exercise their ministry. Moreover, Jeffrey John, who had affirmed that he was living a celibate life, and whose name had been forwarded to be bishop of Reading, withdrew his name under pressure from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It should also be noted that English civil law now recognizes same sex unions.
Myth: The Global South is a united front in its disdain of The Episcopal Church.
Fact: There are provinces in the “Global South” that do not show disdain to The Episcopal Church.
Myth: The Windsor Report requires specific actions from The Episcopal Church.
Fact: The Windsor Report made recommendations to be considered by The Episcopal Church and identified actions for the entire Anglican Communion.
Myth: Human sexuality is at the core of the Windsor Report.
Fact: The core issues raised by the Windsor Report relate to authority and the importance of the provinces' being in communion. The issues underlying the Windsor Report involve interpretation of Scripture (is there only one correct interpretation or are there multiple acceptable interpretations?) and issues of whether there is any person or body in the Anglican Communion that can define the "requirements" for remaining in the Anglican Communion. Issues of Scriptural interpretation and authority, as well as our relationships of authority within the Anglican Communion are also major issues in this conversation. Human Sexuality has simply raised the issue of how we live together in communion.
Myth: To be part of the AC, a province (church) must agree on core communion moral values.
Fact: To be part of the AC a church must be in communion with the ABC.
Myth: The Episcopal Church is liberal/radical on matters of human sexuality.
Fact: The Episcopal Church is respectful, prayerful, compassionate and responsible on matters of human sexuality.
Myth: The Episcopal Church is lax on core moral values.
Fact: The moral values of The Episcopal Church are defined by the 5 Baptismal Vows. There is nothing lax about them. The argument about sexuality represents a clash of competing claims of morality and justice and how the Baptismal Vows ought to be applied.
Myth: The Anglican Communion is an historic structure of central authority.
Fact: The Anglican Communion (as we know it today) came into being after WWII. It does not have a central authority such as the Pope, and relies on our choosing to be in communion with one another, sharing a common ecclesiology, heritage, theological principles, and creedal beliefs. While we share a Book of Common Prayer tradition (though Provinces have books designed for their own unique contexts), the language and style or worship will vary from province to province, thus reflecting our lack of centralized authority and provincial responsibility in reflecting the local experience of Christianity.
Diocese of Southeast Florida DEPUTIES TO 2006 GENERAL CONVENTION
Clergy: The Ven. Mary-Gray-Reeves, Archdeacon for Deployment; The Rev. William (“Chip”) Stokes, St. Paul’s, Delray Beach; The Rev. Horace Ward, Holy Family, Miami; The Rev. Carol Barron, St. Luke’s, Port Salerno Laity: Mr. Thomas O’Brien, Bethesda-by-the-Sea, Palm Beach; Mr. Richard Miller, Holy Family, Miami; Mrs. Char Vinik, St. Gregory’s, Boca Raton; Mrs. LaVerne Comerie-Turck, Holy Sacrament, Pembroke Pines
ALTERNATES TO 2006 GENERAL CONVENTION
Clergy: The Rev. Jennie Lou Reid, St. Thomas, Miami; The Rev. Wilifred Allen-Faiella, St. Stephen’s, Coconut Grove (Miami); The Rev. Earl Henry, Atonement, Lauderdale Lakes; The Rev. Gabe Sinisi, St. Christopher’s-by-the-sea, Key Biscayne Laity: Mrs. Virginia Foot, Holy Trinity, West Palm Beach; Mr. Nelson Famadas, St. Philip’s, Coral Gables; Mr. Erin Ferguson, St. George’s, Riviera Beach
24 comments:
Sorry, but your reply to the claim that 'EUCSA has not complied with the WR' is not to the point. You say we have accepted more recommendations of it than other branches. Even if that were true, and it probably isn't, it doesn't alter the fact that we have not complied. You seem to be so caught up in spin that, despite your own claims to be honest and open, you don't write truthfully.
You write: 'Gene Robinson was duly elected by the Diocese of New Hampshire, his election duly certified by General Convention and he was consecrated by more than three bishops of the Episcopal Church who are themselves in good standing and in the apostolic line." Did Gene Robinson truthfully answer questions about his addiction to alcohol? If his election followed due process does that mean it was done truthfully? I don't see how he can be involved in such deception and remain trustworthy. Any comments?
What other province besides Canada has complied with Windsor? What other province has taken to studying it and discussing and implementing it?
Which province has applied each and every suggestion of Windsor?
The point of whether any has, is directly relevant as to how Windsor is to be viewed. It is designed to have Communion wide application but is not being applied that way.
You write: "Myth: The Episcopal Church is liberal/radical on matters of human sexuality." And, as in post #1 above, your reply, that we are prayerful etc.," is beside the point. Liberal, under any definition--one that says 'liberal relative to other churches' or liberal b/c individual autonomy (liberty) is given great weight--surely fits the widespread attitude in EUCSA toward sexual morality, toward the VGR's consecration, and toward the justifications given for same-sex blessings and VGR's consecration. All your reply does is say that a liberal position was adopted or affirmed in a context of prayer, etc.,
(Of course there is also our denomination's affiliation with organizations that promote unrestricted abortion on demand. Is that not a liberal, 'progressive' position?)These are liberal positions no matter how you slice it. I admit labels can stop discussion and be misleading,but surely ECUSA's general movement or drift is toward liberalism. (Also, what about the guy who spoke recently at the Province I gathering about opening marriage up to 3 people? If he prayed about his position before he delivered it, does that mean that he is not liberal. By your standards it seem to)
You write: "Fact: The moral values of The Episcopal Church are defined by the 5 Baptismal Vows."Sound pretty selective, and reductive to me, as if there is no moral teaching outside of those few pages in the BCP that can and ought to be affirmed by all Christians when, in truth, there is plenty. Part of the problem with the LGBT movement IMHO is that instead of admitting that psychosexual development can go sadly wrong and asking, therefore, for a compassionate response to LBGT's from those, like me, who think sexual relations should be lived out in heterosexual marriage exclusively, the advocates of same-sex union have to do so much damage to how we speak and think about God and ourselves--almost in an Orwellian way--that get farther and farther away from any real depth of Christian faith, and often far from anything recognizable Christian.
"Even if that were true, and it probably isn't,"
Got anything to back that up, anony, or is this just another of your unsubstantiated charges? You know, you lot not only continue to learn from Goebbels, you learn from Joe McCarthy, too. Nice company you're keeping there!
By the way, with every key stroke, you demonstrate once again why it is a waste of time trying to "reconcile" with the likes of you or even talk.
rmf:
Sorry but SRussell said it was a myth (not true) to say that we have not complied with the Wr. Be honest. That is what she said. If she wanted to say only that we have made more progress on more recommendations, she could have said that. She didn't. Lack of compliance by other branches can be addressed, but such a lack of compliance does not mean that we ourselved have complied. Same-sex blessing continue, candidates living in same-sex unions are held up to be bishops, . . .no real repentance has been expressed. These issues will go on being contestable, of course, but they were some of the recommendations at the center of things with which we have not complied.
Again, the spinning and shifting, becoming so characteristic of the movement, that it becomes less and less likely to assent to much here.
jg6544 goes off the rails, and out of bounds, really, when I pointed out that SRussell's 'answer' just wasn't to the point. Think of all the provinces that are already in compliance with Windsor (see the list on http://www.aco.org/primates/biog/index.cfm). The West Indies, Uganda, South India, Southeast Asia, Nigeria, Kenya, Central Africa, and Ireland, I think are in compliance. Our action, remember, was the precipitation event. We are asked to "repent" for it and so it is just side-stepping the issue of the particular compliance requested of us, compliance BTW which was the word which SRussell raised (!).
Why get into name-calling?
anonymous,
perhaps you should take a deep breath before replying. I think you miss the point of what has been posted. These are not Rev. Susan's points, they are supplied by the Diocese of Southeast Florida.
And again, Windsor is not just for North America. It is for the entire Communion to use as a positive force for communion. This is an essential point. It is for the entire Communion.
"This Report is not a judgement. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation." (This is part of what the foreword by +Eames says.)
You list some provinces you claim to be "in accord" with Windsor. How are they in accord? How have they studied or received the process? Have they instituted bishop or primate level studies/commisisons/reports on it as has the Episcopal Church?
Have they even developed or promulgated how they are to *establish* the listening process called for in Windsor?
Thanks, Jeff.
Just FOR THE REC0RD ... this is a document FROM THE DIOCESE OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA!
Why let something as trivial as factual accuracy get in the way of a good rant? He probably "has in his hand" a list of 57 Communists, too.
Jeff says that I take this as a personal attach against me. Not at all. I was simply pointing out non sequiturs and they have not been answered. Fair enough, I missed that this is just posted, and not authored, by SRussell. But the points still remain: it is not a myth, or untrue, to say we are not in compliance with Windsor, for was are not; there seems to have been some deception, or lack of candor on VGR's part in his candidacy for the episcopate, or do you disagree with that; it seems a stretch to say that ECUSA's position on sexual issues is moderate or conservative, when they clearly deserve the label 'liberal' (and I am willing to say that in a non-pejorative way, as I made clear)--so why spin us as a non-liberal denomination?; and to reduce Christian ethics to the few pages of the BCP is a truncated version of the Christian faith, or is it not? When substantive claims are made on a blog, and they are challenged, why can't you all (Martinhauk, Rusell, rmf, jg, . . .) deal with the substance? You haven't.
As for Martinhauk's comment that there is a lack of trust on my part that God's spirit will take us to a new place, I do hope we are taken to a new place. I think, for the record, the new place involves more than thoughtful theology, too. But not less. And I think our congregations are done a deep disservice when leaders put out stuff like this. We have a responsibility not to deal in spin or half-truths.
myth: liberals in ecusa care about the Anglican Communion.
fact: liberals only care about their social agenda. If that means being tossed out of the Anglican Communion, so be it.
First, I need some aspirin...ok.
Second, Anon has really got a burr! Placement under the proverbial saddle! Ouch!
Third: The very first thing Susan tells us is that the information provided is from another Diocese and its Deputies. I found the information unbiased and informing.
...Jesus waa lifted up for us all [Desmond Tutu] not for some but for all of us, the "clever and not so clever; gays, lesbians, so-called straight...". What part of this doesn't Anon understand. It is not about US, it's about Jesus and what He did for the world, all of it, in all of it's imperfection, all out of love for us.
The traditions of men are things that Paul told us not to pay attention to but to the Word and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thanks be to God, She is alive and well in those who truly seek to promote the Gospel of loving the Lord your God with all your heart; God doesn't say that we can't love Him too; and that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that includes the clever and not so clever, gay, lesbian and so-called straight.
And as Elizabeth I said "believe what you will about the bread made holy, but come to the rail and receive it. All else is but trifles." Or in Spurgeon's words, "in the light of eternity, does it matter?".
Catherine writes: I found the information unbiased.
The thinking is muddled, confused, not coherent. Catherine has not spoken to the substance but introduces quotes, however fond she is of them, that do not respond to the points I made. And the quotes are, as she intends them, dismissive of the issues: nothing matters but eternity; everything but the eucharistic miracle is 'trifles.' That's an astonishingly cavalier--or simplistic--dismissal of the labour of responsible thought on either side of the issue constantly raised by this blog.
anonymous,
I am trying to understand what you are saying. Can you help me out?
You seem to suggest that the Windsor Process is the criteria for fellowship, and continued fellowship, in the Communion. I get this part of your statements.
So, how are other Provinces doing by this? How are they complying?
Are they complying? To what degree? With which parts? How much of each part is required to be in compliance? How do you measure compliance, by the way?
Who decides how to measure?
What is the deadline for measuring? Is it the same across the Communion, or is it different? Why?
Anon is very brave and brazen in his/her anonymity. I choose not to look at life and consequently God through a pin hole. I choose to look at God and life on a worldwide scale. I stand with Jeff: I will not move to the back of the bus, I refuse to walk into the concentration camp, I refuse to drink at a separate Fountain, I refuse to believe that Jesus did not die for all...we know He did, and nothing Anon can say will ever change His mind, or the minds and spirits of those who can see through the dark glass of prejudice, bigotry and hate. In fact, I am for the separation of Church and hate, unlike Anon and their cadre. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord, from OUR prayer book.
I find this more than a bit troubling:
... The greatest gift God gave me was me ... .
Oddly, I hear that echoed in statements from people in the exact opposite camp on the various relevant issues.
I find that POV to be equally alarming as an animating principle, or attitude, or what-have-you, in both the deeply conservative and the deeply progressive camps within ECUSA. How interesting that it seems to be the strongest shared value among the most firmly polarized and entrenched among us! Sometimes I think it's the only one.
The greatest gift God gave me was me.
Sigh.
Maybe it doesn't matter anymore, at all, at all, in what direction ECUSA ultimately goes. Because if that's the bottom line, then no matter who "wins," I want no part of it, not for me, and not for my young son, who if asked what God's greatest gift to him is, I would hope would supply a rather different answer.
We are all selfish. That's why God's greatest gift to us is ... .
Catherine, again, does not speak to the issues but now implies that pointing out non sequiturs and asking for accurate statements is hateful and prejudice. Let me remind you that is was this blog that put up in the form of 'myth' versus 'fact' statements that deserve to be challenged. So what does Catherine do? Answer the specific questions? Nope, she reverts to sloganeering. But is is just sloganeering that we do not need now, but honest, careful, and accurate thought. The WR says: "the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the
election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate
who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the
Anglican Communion emerges." The Diocese of California has not heeded this, and para 144 of the WR "calls for" a stop to public rites for same-sex blessings. We haven't done that either. So, one more time, the original post from SE Florida (surely we're to think endorsed by SRussell's happy exclamation mark!) mistates the truth.
I would not have bothered to comment if any number of other things were said (like 'we've responded in some ways to the WR' or 'the laity is more conservative on morality than our church leaders'). But what was posted was inaccurate. I assumed it was posted for comments and I made them, and the only semi-response to them has been to say 'We've done more than you think with the WR.'
anoynymous,
you continue to circle your wagons around one point that, in truth, you keep making, and which is only partially accurate.
another question raised by your posts: how does nominating a bishop who is gay, violate the windsor recommendations?
the followup questions to your answer would be the ones i have posted several times.
you are not doing a particularly useful job of dialogue. more like monologue.
what is your purpose in visiting this site and posting comments?
I forgive your attacks Anon, and though I think you definitely have some faith/security issues, I love you anyway...that is what Jesus taught me. Once again you seek protection in anonymity. It's ok to be afraid. I am thankful that I am not.
Again, go in peace.
Jeff,
You raise a good point about how just one Province has approached Windsor--or failed to, really.
One of the serious shortcomings of the Network bishops and their allies is that they refuse to even acknowledge that the Windsor Report has recommendations and requests directed at them and their activities.
Apart from the dialogue they are to maintain and/or intitiate and then report on, they are specifically asked to express regret for their activities and to abide by the estblished polity of our Church. They are not exempted from expressing regret or from working within our Church structures. They are specially asked to do both.
""We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
♦ to express regret for the consequences of their actions
♦ to affirm their desire to remain in theCommunion, and
♦ to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care. " (section 155)
And there is clear language in 155 delivered directly to dissenting bishops in our Church:
"We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church. "
This last to me is very important because it lays out quite clearly that the processes through which we are to receive and work through things, is our established polity and recognized boundaries. We are not to undermine it or subvert it, or go around it. Doing so is "profoundly dismissive", amounts to bad faith, and requires expression of regret.
Think of all the provinces that are already in compliance with Windsor . . . The West Indies, Uganda, South India, Southeast Asia, Nigeria, Kenya, Central Africa, and Ireland, I think are in compliance.
Anonymous, is this some kind of sick joke?
Nigeria---the nation which (w/ the backing of the AC there) would outlaw the Listening Process---in compliance w/ Windsor?
Uganda---whose AC is one of the chief debarkation points for "Pillagers in Purple" (bishops who cross diocesan boundaries, uninvited)---in compliance w/ Windsor?
I don't think so!
Myth: The Episcopal Church is liberal/radical on matters of human sexuality.
Fact: The Episcopal Church is respectful, prayerful, compassionate and responsible on matters of human sexuality.
None of the things that rmf asserts are true of the ECUSA positions on human sexuality are actually objectively observable. Therefore, they are not facts. They are her opinions only.
Post a Comment