Archives

By YONAT SHIMRON Staff Writer News Observer March 23, 2004 RALEIGH, NC Traditionalist Episcopalians upset with the recent confirmation of an openly gay bishop are considering forming their own church in Raleigh. The group, All Saint’s Fellowship, printed notice of its intention to explore starting a new church in its weekly Sunday bulletin. It has been holding Sunday services in the chapel of St. David’s School, formerly St. Timothy’s-Hale High School, since January. “What’s going on here in Raleigh is going on throughout the United States,” said Garland Tucker III of Raleigh, one of the leaders of the effort. Since the Episcopal Church U.S.A. voted last year to confirm its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, many conservative church members have declared a desire to part with the 2.3 million-member denomination. A new organization, the American Anglican Council, headed by Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh and others, recently formed. But it’s not clear how big the group is. Many of the conservative Episcopalians would like to remain part of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of churches with 75 million members headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But for now, the archbishop recognizes only the Episcopal Church U.S.A. among U.S. Anglicans. Episcopal bishops are discussing alternative oversight for dissenting churches. The core members of All Saint’s Fellowship are, or were, part of the 2,700-member Christ Church in downtown Raleigh. But services at St. David’s Chapel have drawn other disaffected Episcopalians. Attendance at 5 p.m. Sunday services has been between 130 and 420 people, Tucker said. Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, which includes 118 churches across 39 Piedmont counties, was at a meeting of the church’s House of Bishops near Houston and was not available for comment. Curry voted last year in favor of confirming Robinson, the gay bishop, and a majority of Episcopalians in the diocese have signaled that they support him. At the annual diocesan convention in January, conservative delegates proposed a dozen resolutions asking the diocese to change its stand. All were soundly defeated. At Christ Church, conservatives won only one of four vacancies on the governing board in early February. For many opponents of gay ordination, it was clear the diocese was not going to revise its position. Although Christ Church is holding discussions about reconciliation this Wednesday evening and next, some members are determined to leave the church. “We just want to explore the possibility of a new church parish where we can experience biblical teaching with the majority of Anglicans worldwide who are overwhelmingly orthodox in their faith,” said George DeLoache, one of the group’s leaders. In North Carolina, a dozen churches split with the Episcopal Church in recent years—long before the consecration of a gay bishop. The leaders of All Saint’s Fellowship said they do not want to join forces with those churches but would rather wait until new oversight is established. Some of those splinter churches do not recognize the ordination of women; others do not recognize changes to the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal church’s book of liturgy. “We respect the other congregations,” said John Wood, one of the leaders of the new group. He added, “Most of our people are not opposed to women’s ordination.” END VIRTUOSITY FOOTNOTE: This group is made up largely of disaffected Anglo-Catholics from a wide geographical circle in North Carolina.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Episcopal Church House of Bishops has adopted a covenant which they believe will resolve all the problems that now exist between revisionist bishops and biblically orthodox parishes. After three days of closed door meetings at Camp Allen, Texas where even cell phones didn’t work and guards were needed at the gates, in order, one presumes, to prevent anyone wanting to run in and steal the pluriform mind of Frank Griswold, the 100 or so bishops have come up with a plan. It is so convoluted and confusing that one doubts that even the mystic Sufi Rumi could make sense of it if they all met on a plain in NJ’s Meadowlands. Furthermore one seriously doubts the Holy Ghost had much to do with the compromise either. After all the Spirit of Truth will never compromise on sexual sin, that at least is one truth that is absolute. Griswold said the decision shows the hierarchy’s commitment to reconcile the two sides. “We are coming to a new place of mutual discovery and trust,” he said. One orthodox theologian said the Navasota plan is “dead on arrival. It doesn’t even come close to recognizing the crisis we face,” he said. He is right. The American Anglican Council came out with a statement declaring it to be “inadequate,” scoring it as a failure in terms of “reconciliation.” It is impossible to achieve reconciliation without repentance. It is impossible to affect reconciliation when this Church has fragmented itself and will not address the ensuing emergency. The House of Bishops has proven once again their dysfunction and inability to acknowledge, much less address, the crisis of the Episcopal Church. From a format of “process,” small group discussion and multiple revisions, they have produced a plan for episcopal oversight that is undeniably and woefully inadequate. Two opposing ideas were on the table. One was supplemental episcopal pastoral care, proposed by liberals and revisionists, which allowed the diocesan bishop to invite the visitor (an orthodox bishop) but that he (the revisionist bishop) remains in pastoral contact with the congregation. It was understood to be a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal being the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop. The other side said no deal. What they wanted was Alternative Episcopal Oversight with an arrangement not dissimilar to the Forward in Faith UK plan to allow flying bishops to come in and the diocesan to stay right out of it forever. But that dog will never hunt, because it is not allowed by the canons and constitutions (that’s the official excuse), but because it would see a diminishing of the power of the revisionist bishops who are already watching their dioceses in congregational free fall. So the House of Purple came up with a third way. They recommended something called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). [Summary process steps omitted for brevity—already detailed in full “Caring for All the Churches” text above.] On first reading there is a silver lining in this DEPO plan for the orthodox and it is this: They can run this process out for months, possibly years and never have to see a revisionist bishop ever again. In the meantime they can take their confirmands to an orthodox diocese for confirmation (that’s canonically legal). As one orthodox bishop said to VIRTUOSITY, “if a priest presents confirmands to me at one of my churches and asks me to confirm them, I will do so, there is no canonical violation.” The priest can then return and keep the “process” for DEPO running on indefinitely. Of course all this is about strategy not truth. The notion that you can reconcile homoerotic behavior with holiness and revealed religion with pansexuality is the biggest lie of all. It will never happen, and that is why, at the end of the day, this plan, like all other plans of compromise, will fail. END

Statement from FIFNA President, Fr. David Moyer 24 March 2004 FIFNA’s Response to the House of Bishops’ Statement on Episcopal Care Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison. It would be wise in this second half of the Lenten season to pray unceasingly in light of the ECUSA House of Bishop’s Statement of 23 March, 2004. We have a church (or as Father Sam Edwards would say, an “unchurch”) that has been declared to be in rebellion, disobedient to the whole counsel of God, by the vast majority of baptized members of the Anglican Communion, as well as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although the bishops say that the church is “to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God,” they mean that the orthodox must be “reconciled” to the agenda of ECUSA. Forward In Faith, North America, being a part of an international witness to Apostolic Order, Catholic Truth, and Evangelical Faith, is totally committed to reconciliation and unity. But, this reconciliation must be grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles which alone fosters unity amongst Christians. We strive to submit ourselves to God’s Revelation as known in the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. The thrust of the House of Bishops’ Statement is on episcopal oversight. How in the Name of God can a church in crisis and denial led by revisionist bishops in aggressive and willful disobedience to Holy Scripture and ecumenical consensus think that faithful and intelligent people be deceived by this statement? No member parish or individual of FIFNA takes joy in the brokenness and impairment of relationships with their bishops. This isn’t the way it should be. But, we are not foolish. We see the state of denial that the ECUSA House of Bishops maintains. We understand the agenda to be that of intimidation, suppression and the elimination of orthodox faith and practice. Has there been any reversal of this? I will say with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, “Bear fruit that befits repentance” (Matthew 3:8) Bishops are not welcomed and diocesan programs are not supported for the simple reason that a significant number of faithful souls don’t see them upholding and maintaining the Church’s proven witness to the world for salvation, healing, and reconciliation. We observe with heavy hearts those entrusted with apostolic authority who do not bring to the sheep of Christ’s pasture the doctrine of the Church Catholic and Apostolic. Indeed, they undermine Christ’s teachings. How could any converted soul welcome their statement? The provision (and there are no guarantees) of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight is simply a denial of reality, and a gross failure to be apostolically pastoral to people. What committed priest or lay person could embrace this token thrown our way to deceive us by attempting to lower the temperature of unrest, and to stop the hemorrhaging of people? We all know that fully orthodox bishops cannot be reproduced in ECUSA and that fully orthodox churches are no longer free to maintain fully orthodox clergy leadership upon the death or retirement of their priest. Daily ECUSA loses more of her members to other churches or to nowhere at all! We will not accept this. We are committed to Adequate Episcopal Oversight as defined by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We will continue to work with the “Network” to achieve this goal. Let us be glad for Mother Church’s gift of Lent. We truly need it. (The Rev. Dr.) David L. Moyer END

3/24/2004 Network members, moderator, respond to ECUSA plan The national Episcopal Church’s just-released plan for “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” will require “tremendous generosity and charity on the part of the bishops and an extraordinary new level of trust on the part of the people and clergy,” if it is to work, said the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network. “The Network bishops will do what they can to enable the plan’s success,” he added. “I am deeply concerned that we are able to offer Adequate Episcopal Oversight as the Primates understand it. The question is whether there is the will in the Episcopal Church to make this plan into that,” said Duncan. “My commitment, and that of the Network, is to stand in solidarity with people of faith who are desperately struggling in some of our dioceses.” Responses from clergy and laity in the Network’s 12 dioceses and six convocations make it clear that, for most, the new plan leaves much to be desired. “Parishes being oppressed by bishops have to go to the person oppressing them, meet with them and then they may provide another bishop for you,” said Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the Network diocese of South Carolina. According to Fr. Greg Brewer, Rector of the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, PA, “generosity and charity” haven’t been what he and other orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses have always received in the past. “I was very disappointed in the content. It presumes the good will of liberal bishops to provide outside conservative pastoral care—There are a number of bishops that do not have that kind of good will,” he explained. The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, commonly known as the Anglican Communion Network, represents the Episcopalians of 12 dioceses and six regional convocations as well as thousands of individual Episcopalians from all over the United States, committed to being a united missionary movement of those sharing the gospel and rejecting false teaching. Primates, representing more than two-thirds of the world’s 60 million active Anglicans, have voiced public support for the Network. END

RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press Winding up three days of closed-door talks, the Episcopal Church’s bishops offered a new plan Tuesday for ministering to conservative congregations that feel bound to reject the leadership of bishops who support gay clergy. The head of the denomination, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, said the decision shows the hierarchy’s commitment to reconcile the two sides. “We are coming to a new place of mutual discovery and trust,” he said. But the plan, produced at a meeting in Navasota, Texas, may not prevent further problems in a denomination that has been in turmoil since the consecration of its first openly gay bishop last year. Conservative activists rejected a very similar proposal last November, and one cleric said that the new plan was “dead on arrival.” Under normal Episcopal procedure, the local bishop controls all ministries in his diocese but can decide to invite visiting bishops to substitute in cases of special need. In the current situation, congregations that cannot accept leadership by the resident bishop because of the denomination’s split over gay clerics are asking to be led by visiting, conservative bishops. Five retired Episcopal bishops pressed the issue by performing confirmation rites near Akron, Ohio, this month without required approval by the local diocese. The bishops implied that further disobedience would occur if conservative congregations were not given what they want. Tuesday’s plan for “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” calls on parishes that disagree with the local bishop over gay clergy to meet with him. If a deal for visiting bishops cannot be struck, an appeal can be filed with the president or vice president of the region, or province. The provincial bishop might consult in turn with two other bishops representing different views before deciding what to recommend. Last November, conservatives complained that the church’s liberal majority would have control of such regional appeals. The visiting bishops would serve temporarily “for a stated period of time” and church leaders would regularly review the situation. The whole issue ignited last August when the denomination approved New Hampshire’s election of an openly gay priest, V. Gene Robinson, as the local bishop. Robinson attended the Texas meetings this week. At an emergency summit in October, the top leaders of the international Anglican Communion urged the Episcopal Church, the communion’s U.S. branch, to grant dissenters “adequate provision for episcopal oversight.” The American church leader, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his Council of Advice then proposed the provisional plan that conservatives rejected. Meanwhile, a “network” of conservative dioceses and parishes has been working on plans for ministering to member churches scattered throughout the country. Canon Kendall Harmon, South Carolina’s delegate on the network steering committee, said the Navasota plan is “dead on arrival. It doesn’t even come close to recognizing the crisis we face.” Harmon said the views of the conservative priests and parishioners “were never sought” before the Texas gathering. He said several bishops in the network left Navasota in discouragement before Tuesday’s final vote. Bishop John Chane of the Washington, D.C., diocese, a Robinson supporter, said under the Navasota plan, dissenting congregations will continue “significant relationships” with their regular bishops, and that that was “as much as we bishops could do” without violating church law. In another wrinkle, Jim Naughton, spokesman for the liberal Washington (D.C.) Diocese, sees the latest plan as also providing outside bishops to lead congregations that support the denomination’s policies but live under conservative bishops. A closed-door national caucus for such Episcopalians begins Thursday in Atlanta.

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Episcopal bishop of Washington has named two priests—the former national chairman of the church’s homosexual caucus and a divorced mother of two sons—to head a new diocesan task force on same-sex blessings. The Revs. Michael W. Hopkins and Susan N. Blue favor same-sex blessings and have both performed several in the 40,000-member diocese. The rite, requested by Bishop John B. Chane, should be ready by June. The six-member task force is poring over sample rites throughout the country to develop one that is “classically Anglican in tone and format,” according to diocesan spokesman Jim Naughton. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer has no such rite, and Episcopalians declined to mandate such a ceremony at last summer’s Episcopal General Convention in Minneapolis. Mr. Hopkins, co-chairman of the task force and the rector of St. George’s Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale, said he has performed eight same-sex church blessings in the past decade. “We have been asked to do a rite for people for whom marriage is not available,” said the priest, who recently stepped down as chairman of the integrity caucus. “We want to make sure there’s a standard in the diocese, so that what is used is good liturgy,” Mr. Hopkins said. “Having a standard will help many other congregations to consider it, who are not performing it now.” He estimated a half-dozen out of 94 congregations in the diocese are performing same-sex rites. Susan Blue, the co-chairman and rector of St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church near Dupont Circle, declined to be interviewed. According to her church’s Web site, www.stmargaretsdc.org, she was divorced after a 23-year marriage that produced two sons. She is quoted in the current issue of MetroWeekly, a local magazine for homosexuals, as saying she has performed “commitment ceremonies” for homosexuals for the past five years. A representative for the Washington Chapter of the American Anglican Council (AAC), the main conservative group opposing same-sex blessings, expressed frustration with Bishop Chane. “I’m very disappointed that he would so quickly after General Convention appoint a task force when we are not of the same mind on this,” said Brad Hutt, vice chairman of AAC/Washington. In a letter to diocesan clergy, the bishop informed them that the rite can be used for other “relationships,” such as elderly couples, who because of tax law or inheritance issues cannot marry. Mr. Naughton said the rite could serve couples who lack the mental capacities for a civil ceremony. “There are people who are mentally handicapped, who have a relationship, but whose guardians or parents don’t feel marriage is the right thing,” he said, “but there is a loving, exclusive relationship between these two folks. Their families have said, ‘We wish they could be married, but they can’t, but we want the blessing of God and the church on this.’” Other members of the task force are Johanna Ettin, a member of St. Thomas Episcopal Church at Dupont Circle; the Rev. D. Thomas Andrews, rector of Holy Trinity Episcopal Church in Bowie; the Rev. Robyn Franklin-Vaughan, the campus minister at Howard University; and the Rev. Peter Antoci, campus minister at University of Maryland and the ecumenical officer for the diocese. Meanwhile, in Navasota, Texas, the denomination’s House of Bishops continued a three-day closed-door meeting where much of the discussion is on the denomination’s first openly homosexual bishop, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Bishop Robinson is at the meeting, even though numerous bishops there voted against his election as the new bishop of New Hampshire. Some bishops are boycotting the meeting over the Robinson issue, and others are only attending selected meetings. High on the bishops’ agenda is how to deal with conservative parishes who refuse to accept the authority of liberal bishops. Last Sunday, six conservative Episcopal bishops performed a clandestine confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio against the wishes of its sitting bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Clark Grew, a church liberal. The team of bishops was headed by the Rt. Rev. Maurice Benitez, the retired bishop of Texas, in the diocese in which the Navasota meeting is taking place. In a speech to members of six churches at the Ohio ceremony, Bishop Benitez called their actions an “essential and imperative response to a pastoral emergency in northern Ohio.” END

A Letter from the Primate of Brazil to the Most Revd Frank Griswold March 22, 2004 (ACNS) PORTO ALEGRE— The Most Revd Frank Griswold Presiding Bishop of The ECUSA Episcopal Church Centre 815 Second Avenue New York 10017, NY. United States of America My Dear Brother, It was with surprise, sadness and concern that we received the news about the participation—without permission from the diocesan bishop of Ohio—of the Brazilian Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti, diocesan Bishop of Recife of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, in a confirmation service of 110 people in the state of Ohio, together with five retired bishops of ECUSA, as his participation has been stated in the press “as illustrating international support for the measures.” We want to express to your Grace our strong disapproval of this action taken by this bishop, the Right Revd Cavalcanti, who, apart from showing himself through this gesture to be both impolite and disrespectful, has violated the constitution and the canons of ECUSA, by performing an Episcopal and sacramental act in the Diocese of Ohio without the permission from the bishop of that Diocese. With regard to the above-referenced act and also with reference to any others he may have participated in during his presence in the USA, Bishop Cavalcanti was neither an official nor a sanctioned representative of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. His participation in all and any events while in the USA was a purely personal initiative and not in any way as an envoy from our Brazilian province. He did not and would never have obtained permission for such action; furthermore, at no stage were we informed as to his intentions with regards to such a visit. Within our Brazilian province, such an act constitutes a blatant violation of our constitution and canons, in the most basic context of the traditions of the Church. As one of the Primates who attended the Primates’ meeting of October 15th and 16th, 2003, I can also state that the fact of some bishops abrogating for themselves the right to perform sacramental and Episcopal acts, without permission from the diocesan bishop, and at the same time proclaiming such acts to be in accordance with the mandate of the Archbishop of Canterbury and with the Primates, is neither true nor correct. The declaration arising from this meeting states that all provision for Episcopal oversight of “dissident minorities” is a matter to be resolved by the province in question and, as such, restates that “whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for Episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.” Thus, on behalf of the Bishops’ Chamber, of the clergy and of the people of the Province of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, I would like to offer to your Grace our most sincere apologies for such a disrespectful and impolite act as done by one of our bishops. Similarly, I would like to reaffirm that in no way do we agree with nor would we sanction such a canonical violation, done in total disrespect for the autonomy of your province and for the Diocese of Ohio. Further, I take this opportunity to inform you that this matter will be taken up and examined in the next meeting of the Bishops’ Chamber, 22–23 March, 2004. I also wish to reaffirm our respect for the decisions of the General Convention in Minneapolis, thus recognising the autonomy of our brothers and sisters of ECUSA, who, in their own cultural and ecclesiastical context, and through regular and democratic canonical process, confirmed the election of Bishop Gene Robinson. Last but not least, I also wish to reaffirm our communion and companionship with our sister Church ECUSA. We believe that the family we belong to, the Family of the Anglican Communion around the world, has to be an instrument of God’s love for the world and that means, that in seeking to hold together as a Communion, we have to be seeking to serve that purpose and no other. So, it is my belief that by attempting to work through differences within our family we may come to a better perception of the calling of our mission. We reaffirm that we are Partners in Mission with ECUSA. Be assured of our prayers for your well-being, for the pastoral ministry that God has entrusted to you, and also for all the clergy and people of ECUSA. “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” Romans 8.28 With every good wish and blessing, Most Revd Orlando Santos de Oliveira Primate of the Province of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. END

By RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press 3/22/2004 The Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop weathered a firestorm of controversy on his way to being consecrated, but with some colleagues still refusing to accept him, the tension has hardly been quelled. On Friday, New Hampshire’s V. Gene Robinson was to take part in his first meeting as part of the denomination’s hierarchy, a gathering aimed at easing the strain. The bishops begin the closed-door meeting in Navasota, Texas, 60 miles northwest of Houston, to focus on “reconciliation” within the Episcopal Church and the international Anglican Communion of which it’s a part. It is not a legislative meeting and no major policy decisions are expected, Episcopal headquarters in New York City said Wednesday. Robinson is attending his first meeting as part of a hierarchy in which 41 percent of bishops who head dioceses voted against his consecration and 28 of the bishops have refused to recognize him as a colleague. The bishops will discuss the current flashpoint, how to handle conservative parishes that don’t want to quit the Episcopal Church but cannot accept the authority of local bishops who favor gay clergy. The proposed remedy is to provide dissenting parishes with special conservative bishops from outside their dioceses. At an emergency summit last October, world Anglicanism’s top leaders urged the American church to grant dissenters “adequate provision for episcopal oversight.” The U.S. church leader, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and his Council of Advice then proposed a plan allowing outside bishops to work with conservative parishes—though only with approval from the local bishop as required by church law, allowing for appeals to regional bodies in case of disagreements. Conservatives have rejected that. They don’t want the local bishops to keep their veto power and claim liberals control the regional bodies that would hear appeals. Griswold will present a rewritten plan at Navasota. Conservative leaders complain that they weren’t consulted, and bishops weren’t given the text to study in advance. Griswold repeated Monday that any plan must honor local bishops’ powers under existing church law. The leading conservative bishop is Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of a “network” formed in January to unite Episcopal dioceses and parishes that insist upon the traditional Christian teaching against same-sex relationships. Duncan said some conservative bishops are boycotting the Navasota meeting, some will participate fully and some—like himself—will stay offsite and attend only sessions treating the church fracture. Duncan said the church must “come to its senses” and help conservatives because “the present course is a suicidal course, or at least a fratricidal course.” Matters escalated last Sunday when five Episcopal bishops led a rebel confirmation service in Akron, Ohio congregations that spurned local Bishop J. Clark Grew II, a Robinson supporter. Maurice Benitez, retired bishop of the Texas Diocese and spokesman for the five bishops, said if the hierarchy produces an “acceptable plan” for visiting bishops, “these kinds of measures may no longer be necessary.” The implication: If not, there will be further violations. Duncan said that if the Navasota meeting doesn’t heed conservative appeals there will be “continuing chaos,” not only Akron-type protests but congregations leaving the Episcopal Church. Griswold’s Council of Advice said the five bishops broke church law, since Grew did not approve the confirmations, and appealed for unity against forces that “seek to sow the seeds of division.” Grew said the Akron service might have been an attempt to “manipulate” the Navasota meeting while Griswold suggested the event was intended to “co-opt the bishops’ agenda.” END

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 ENS 032304-1 [ENS] In response to the different points of view that exist in the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church concerning issues of human sexuality, the House of Bishops, meeting March 19–25 in Camp Allen, Texas, have issued a document entitled "Caring for all the Churches." The full text follows: The church is the Body of Christ. Our life in this Body is a continuing action of God’s grace among us, by whose power alone we are “joined together” in Christ and grow “into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:21). Through the church’s common life in Christ, God intends to signify to the world the beginning of a new and reconciled creation. We know the unity with God that Christ has won for humanity, he won through the victory of his passion. We are mindful of the suffering of Jesus who, on the Cross and through his resurrection, reaches into every corner of alienated human life, reconciling and restoring to the household of God all who come to him in faith. By God’s grace the church is continually called, in repentance and hope, to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God. We understand that, in obedience to Christ and putting our whole trust in him, we may share in his unity with the Father through the Holy Spirit. Communion in the Trinity is the salvation of the world. The church, thus, exists for the sake of the world. Therefore, for the sake of the world, we have been called “to serve before God day and night in the ministry of reconciliation”, (BCP, p.521) which is to be carried out “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:2–3) We as bishops are not of a common mind about issues concerning human sexuality. Different points of view on these matters also exist within our dioceses and congregations. In some instances there are significant differences between congregation(s) and the bishop and few of our congregations are themselves of one mind. As we exercise pastoral leadership in our dioceses, we pledge ourselves to work always towards the fullest relationship, seeking, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, “the highest degree of communion.” We are grateful for his leadership and share the pastoral concerns expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in their statement of October 2003, “for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters.” We have committed ourselves to living through this time of disagreement in love and charity and with sensitivity to the pastoral needs of all members of our church. In the circumstance of disagreement regarding the actions of the 74th General Convention on issues of human sexuality, we commit ourselves to providing and to making provision for pastoral care for dissenting congregations, and we recognize that there may be a need for a bishop to delegate some pastoral oversight. Oversight means the episcopal acts performed as part of a diocesan bishop’s ministry either by the diocesan bishop or by another bishop to whom such responsibility has been delegated by the diocesan bishop. In other Anglican Provinces, the term “pastoral oversight” signifies what we mean by “pastoral care.” In our Episcopal Church polity, “oversight” does not confer “jurisdiction.” We are aware of current examples of the delegation of pastoral oversight in the gracious accommodations which have occurred in some dioceses. As we together commit to a process for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, we also recognize the constitutional and canonical authority of bishops and the integrity of diocesan boundaries. We are in accord with the statement of the primates: “Whilst we affirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.” Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness. Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant. The notion that the bishop’s views must be in accord with those of a particular rector or congregation for the bishop to be received as chief pastor opens the way to undermining the bishop’s pastoral ministry, which must embrace all and “support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries.” Our theology and practice hold that ordination and consecration provide the gifts and grace necessary for the sacramental acts of a bishop to be effectual. (See article XXVI of the Articles of Religion: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.) As bishops we share a ministry of episcopé as stewards of the mystery of faith that none of us possesses alone. We believe it is our particular charge to nourish, guard and represent in the church this “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We understand this to be for the sake of the world and in fidelity to our Lord who gave his life to restore all to unity with God. We recognize and repent of our failures of charity towards one another in this shared ministry of episcopé, and we pledge ourselves to a sacrificial ministry with one another, valuing in each the presence of the Crucified and Risen Christ. While our unity may be strained, we continue to strive for godly union and concord. Our task requires humility, charity, mutual respect and a willingness to make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In March of 2002 the House of Bishops adopted the following covenant: “We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity. ‘The provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care shall be under the direction of the bishop of the diocese, who shall invite the visitor and remain in pastoral contact with the congregation. This is to be understood as a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal of which is the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop.’” Expanding on this previous agreement, and working always towards “the highest degree of communion,” we offer the following recommendations in order to provide Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. We expect that the first priority in a relationship between a diocesan bishop and congregation is a striving for unity. As such, it is incumbent upon both the bishop and the rector/congregation to meet together, with a consultant, if needed, to find ways to work together. If for serious cause in the light of our current disagreements on issues of human sexuality, the bishop and rector/congregation cannot work together, we propose the following process for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. In the spirit of openness, the rector and vestry, or the canonically designated lay leadership shall meet with the bishop to seek reconciliation. After such a meeting, it is our hope that in most instances a mutually agreeable way forward will be found. If reconciliation does not occur, then the rector and two-thirds of the vestry, or in the absence of a rector, two-thirds of the canonically designated lay leadership, after fully engaging the congregation, may seek from their diocesan bishop, (or the diocesan bishop may suggest) a conference regarding the appropriateness and conditions for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. After such a conference the bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight. If no reconciliation is achieved, there may then be an appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province in which the congregation is geographically located, for help in seeking a resolution. Those making such an appeal must inform the other party of their decision to appeal. When such an appeal has been made, the provincial bishop may request two other bishops, representative of the divergent views in this church, to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation, to consider the appeal, and to make recommendations to all parties. If an episcopal visitor is to be invited, that bishop shall be a member in good standing in this Church. When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation. The plan shall include expectations of all parties, especially mutual accountability. The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews. The provincial bishop shall periodically inform the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, and the House of Bishops at its regular meetings of the progress and results of this process. As bishops of this church, we pledge ourselves to pray and work for patience and the generosity of spirit that can enable a pastoral resolution as we live with our differences. As well, we will strive for Godly union and concord as together we seek to be led by the Spirit of truth who, as Jesus tells us, “will guide us into all the truth.” (John 16:13) The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church 23 March 2004

The term "high concept" refers to a movie with a striking plotline that can be described in one sentence (e.g., Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger are long-lost "Twins"). In high-concept movies things explode. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman specializes in another kind of high-concept movie, one in which a strange premise unfolds in surreal ways. Things don’t explode; they melt, like Dali’s watch. His first film, Being John Malkovich (1999), sought to answer the perennial question, “What would it be like if a secret door in my office led to a ride inside John Malkovich’s brain?” as well as the obvious follow-up, “Could I make money selling these rides?” (And you thought you were the only one wondering about that.) Adaptation (2002) gave us boxes inside boxes: Charlie Kaufman was hired to adapt the book The Orchid Thief, and turned in a script about a screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt the book The Orchid Thief. Charlie is a sad sack who can’t complete the job, immobilized as he is by lofty artistic standards that resist crowd-pleasers like plot, character, and a conclusion. Finally his (imaginary) brother Donald Kaufman takes over and supplies a Hollywood-style ending. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has as its strongest element a succinct concept: a company named Lacuna, Inc., can erase past painful memories, for example those of a lost love. (A nifty element of the film’s publicity is a convincingly realistic website for Lacuna, Inc., including a self-test to see if you’d benefit from memory erasure.) Heartbroken Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to undergo the process, and then changes his mind in midstream; in the surreal realm of dreams he fights to hold onto memories of Clementine (Kate Winslet) so he can find her again when he awakes. Joel is a shlub, a shy, worried fellow, somewhat depressed and somewhat wrinkled, who likes people who are "nice." (Yes, they cast Jim Carrey in this role). Clementine (Kate Winslet) is a terror, a woman at least a decade younger who is angry and flirtatious, unrelentingly self-centered, and a heavy drinker. If Americans think the most shameful condition for a man is depression and for a woman is alcoholism, Kaufman has scored a twofer. These two strike up a relationship—it would be a stretch to say "fall in love"—and all you want is rescue poor Joel from this dangerous, destructive woman. Winslet deserves applause for her courageous portrayal of Clementine, a character whom we never have any reason to trust. Carrey does fine in a role that is, for him, unusually subdued, though he never moves us to love this generally bland character. Elijah Wood appears as a Lacuna employee who falls in love with Clementine. Most interesting was Tom Wilkinson as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, founder of Lacuna, Inc. The usual line calls for this person to combine oily ingratiation with the delusions of a mad scientist. Howard instead is the most grounded, authentic character in the movie, and appears to be genuinely compassionate (more so than he appears in the movie ads, for some reason). This is a problem, actually. He’s the most likeable person in the movie, and the movie is not about him. What steals the scene is the scenery. Once Joel is asleep and decides that he wants to resist the erasure of Clementine’s memories, he cuts back and forth through time inside his own head, trying to find a place where he and she can hide until the procedure is over. Thus we have rain falling inside his apartment, which turns into the back yard of his childhood, and a cartoonish scene in which he hides under the kitchen table as a four-year-old. As the relentless process destroys his memories of Clementine, we see him walk with her down streets where the signs are going blank, stand in a bookstore where the covers are turning white, hesitate in a beach house while it crumbles around him. These are extraordinary effects, visually rich, and so fluid that it is impossible to savor them all. But since they could all be filed under "surreal dream sequence," they have an essential sameness. During this part of the movie nothing is happening to advance the plot; we’re in limbo. For roughly an hour we have the equivalent of Joel and Clementine running through a tunnel holding hands. What happens when they come out? The movie ends, but without much having happened. Joel has not changed and neither has Clementine, and there is still no reason for them to be together. It turns out that there’s a reason satisfying stories show characters that grow, a plot that enables them to, and a conclusion that draws it all together. We don’t need to watch aimless, confused people dither their lives away. People know how to do that already. What storytelling has done, from time immemorial, is to show characters who either find a way to make their lives make sense, or fail movingly. It’s not selling out to write a screenplay that answers this human hunger. We spend enough time stumbling in the mist of dreams. Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com

By Julian Coman in Washington The Telegraph 3/21/2004 The fierce battle over same-sex unions, which has split American public opinion during the past month, has now pitched the Vatican into an unlikely alliance with Islamic countries against officials of the United Nations. A proposal by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to extend spousal benefits to the partners of gay UN officials has outraged representatives of the organisation's 51 Islamic nations, some of which outlaw homosexuality altogether. The Vatican's envoy to the UN has also expressed dismay, prompting fears among Mr Annan's aides of a joint Roman Catholic-Muslim crusade. According to an internal UN bulletin issued in January, any "legally-recognised domestic partnership" will now qualify for the same UN employment benefits a conventional married couple would receive. The move has come as President George W Bush is proposing a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages in the United States. In the corridors of the UN, similar proposals are being mooted by conservative groups. Only nine of the UN's 185 members recognise same-sex partners. They include Australia, Canada and France. Similar legislation is expected to go before Britain's Parliament this spring. In Morocco, by contrast, homosexual acts are punishable by between six months and three years in prison. Mr Annan's rule change means that a gay French or Australian UN employee should now be able to claim for his or her partner the same travel expenses, assistance with visas and pension plans as an ordinary husband or wife - or, for that matter, the multiple wives of diplomats from countries that permit polygamy. Gay lobby groups claim that in the past relationships have broken up when UN employees re-located and same- sex partners were unable to follow. For nationals of countries where same-sex partnerships are not recognised, the new benefits would not apply. Traditionally liberal members of the UN general assembly have heartily approved Mr Annan's move. Canada's representative, Jerry Kramer, said that he "saluted" the new ruling. But the beginnings of a globalisation of gay marriage rights, seen by many UN members as a Western aberration, has caused near apoplexy among socially conservative colleagues. Joseph Klee, the Vatican envoy to the UN, underlined last week that same-sex unions were contrary to Catholic teaching. "For us, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is the foundation of the family," said Mr Klee. A spokesman for the Holy See told the Telegraph that if the new rule was implemented, the Vatican would attempt to block it. "So far we have made our position known informally," said the spokesman. "When the time comes for an official intervention we will make one." Iran, where homosexuality is illegal, is leading Islamic objections, strongly supported by Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Iranian UN representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, is demanding a vote on proposed spousal benefits for homosexuals at the UN General Assembly, where a majority would almost certainly vote against the idea. As the Islamic world closes ranks, the European Union is attempting to come to Mr Annan's aid. "The European Union is satisfied with this practice and we see no reason why the secretary-general's prerogative in this area should now be contested," said a spokesman. Privately, diplomats are more wary. "This is a hell of a hornets' nest," said one Western diplomat. "The Islamic countries are furious, although they are not sure they can do anything about it. The gay lobby is asking why there is such a fuss, when the UN recognises polygamous marriages and allows benefits to be divided between such wives. The Americans, given President Bush's opposition to gay marriage, are keeping their heads down." Mr Annan has so far refused to take the issue before the General Assembly. His conservative opponents are promising to go to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. "This one could run and run," said the diplomat. END

COMMENTARY By Kevin Myers The Telegraph Dr. Williams has made an art of imprecision. The conversation between Phillip Pullman, the author of His Dark Materials, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, published in The Daily Telegraph last week, like almost anything emanating from the leader of the Church of England, reads like a master-class in ecclesiastical imprecision. I have read the exchange many times, and it remains as clear as porridge. Chew this: "And if the reality is my will and my thoughts. If there is somewhere a condition where I can get the body where it belongs, get it under control, then that's where I want to be. And, of course, Christians and other religious people do buy into that in ways that are very problematic." Not even dental floss will remove that. Now I know it's not fair being disrespectful of those who hold the see of Canterbury. For years now, each of them has become almost like a dotty old uncle who turns up at Christmas with a hearing trumpet and a tasselled cap on his head. No one wants to offend the old fellow, so no one has the nerve to declare that nobody's quite sure of his continuing raison d'etre. So he sits in his favourite armchair by the fire, where he spends the day babbling into the flames and drooling onto his velvet weskit, while the family members get drunk and take it in turns to roar some occasional kindness into the old codger's trumpet. Rowan Williams, moreover, resembles a Pooh Bear toy that has been savaged by terriers. Unruly tussocks of horsehair protrude from every orifice. His eyes often have the maddened glare of glass beads whose ursine dignity has been gravely insulted, and his clothes suggest he has been dressed from an Oxfam shop. You can easily imagine him as an impoverished stall-holder in an open-air books market, drinking tea out of a chipped mug and sporting an ancient, holey cardigan: certainly, the uninformed could never believe he was even a clergyman, never mind the spiritual leader of the world's 60 million Anglicans. Ah, how that term "60 million Anglicans" is so easily uttered. It has as much meaning as any three unrelated words unwillingly put together - "Haitian civic spirit", say, or "Tibetan cricket team". First, the Anglican church is just about dead in England, its continuing eminence being largely hall-of-mirrors trickery in which the media and the institutions of state conspire. If you judged the Church of England as you would a football team, by the numbers of people who vigorously supported it, then Anglicanism is Accrington Stanley reserves. Anglicanism, like the English muffin, is far bigger in North America, where the vexed issue of homosexuality is one of the reasons that Pooh Bear these days so often talks porridge. Canadian and some US Episcopalians favour same-sex "marriages": but others there, and almost all African and Asian church members, are about as opposed to the notions of homosexual wedlock as they are to marriage between a human and a horse. Amidst all the porridge, I'm not sure what Pooh's position - so to speak - is on homosexual marriage. Nor am I sure on his attitude towards homosexual bishops, only that he called on Canon Gene Robinson to withdraw as bishop-elect of New Hampshire last year. This was not, I suspect, because of his personal dislike of having a mitre-biter in the Episcopal palace, so much as the volcanic anger that the issue was causing in Africa. For poor Pooh Bear has arrived at the head of the Church of England just as it was being riven asunder at the San Andreas Fault of sexuality. So it's no wonder that in addition to the terrier attack, he looks at times as if he has the mange, or that whenever he opens his mouth, he speaks in tongues, mellifluously, certainly, and beardedly, naturally, but in tongues none the less. For babble is safe. Babble baffles. It doesn't divide. If he were to say anything about sex that anyone could actually understand, one side or the other, or even both, might secede. The real miracle is less that the Church has not yet divided totally over sex so much as that its opinions still attract as much media attention as they do, given that it has fewer active followers than does the Chief Scout of Britain. And if female pensioners were disqualified from worship, the Anglican churches of England (though with some vigorous exceptions) would be almost empty. Yet Pooh merely has to open his mouth and utter screeds of melodious impenetrability to get yards of respectful press coverage. He is at once very powerful and almost powerless, as the yawning breach in the heart of the Anglican community attests. Avoiding an unpleasant decision on homosexuality, marriage and the ministry will not spare him an unpleasant outcome; sooner or later, his verbal Quaker Oats and syntactic Ready Brek will probably collapse under their own glutinous weight, vanishing down the chasm in the centre of the Anglican communion.