DEPO MUST BE REJECTED SAY UK FIFNA LEADERS

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops’ Paper “Caring for All the Churches”

“I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life,” Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops’ paper.

The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative.

The Problem

As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake, and how might they be settled?

In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement.

Some suppose the plain meaning to be apparent and upheld by Church tradition. Others suppose Scripture is unclear, tradition unreliable, and assert the Church can reinterpret or ignore texts as it will.

In attitudes to the authority of the local Church?

Some hold the local church (diocese or province) has full autonomy. Others cling to the view that no province is more than a part of the wider Church Universal—and is answerable to the Anglican Communion and historic inheritance.

In sexual morality? Surely the deepest disagreements lie here.

One side holds marriage is lifelong union of one man and one woman; all sexual relations outside that fall short. The bishop, as “a type of the Father” (St Ignatius), must embody this discipline.

The other side holds a man may leave his wife and family, enter a carnal same-sex relationship, and yet remain fit to be bishop.

In short, two diametrically opposed views exist in ECUSA—asymmetrically disposed. Those rejecting non-celibate gay ordination do so to sustain unity and continuity with the past. Those upholding it do so contra mundum.

The Proposed Solution

The bishops propose Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO)—but it suffers serious problems of principle and process.

The underlying principle is that unity consists not in shared belief, but in canonical form:

“Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness… bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences…”

This is partially true—but bishops are entrusted with guarding the faith, not free to hold any opinion they choose. The failure of ECUSA’s House of Bishops to exercise collegial restraint is glaring—evident in accepting bishops who deny Nicene tenets and rejecting fraternal counsel from Lambeth and the Primates.

Where the House is dysfunctional, responsibility devolves to clergy and laity.

DEPO, as defined, is:

a) Not oversight—contrary to the Primates’ call for episcopal oversight with jurisdiction. ECUSA redefines episcope to evade the requirement.

b) Minimal—affects no existing rights of the diocesan bishop; adds nothing new.

c) Concessionary, not conciliatory—makes no admission of wrongdoing.

d) Temporary—designed to eliminate dissent. Plans are explicitly for “reconciliation” over a “stated period.”

Conclusion

We reject the proposals—both premises and provisions. DEPO will not provide what we need. We trust the Lambeth Commission and Primates Meeting will reject it as insubstantial and cosmetic.

Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of its framers is, moreover, a further offense.