It's getting nasty in the Anglican Communion. I'll start with a letter by Presiding Bishop Griswold to the other primates.
May 5, 2004
For the Primates of the Anglican Communion
My dear brothers,
Grace to you and peace in our risen Savior Jesus Christ.
I find myself, in these days of Easter in which we contemplate the
mystery of the resurrection and its consequences in our lives, living
with a sharp awareness of the reality of our being bound together in
the Lord because of our baptism into the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. And, that being thus bound we are called to share one
another's sufferings as well as joys. Over these months I have been
deeply grieved that recent events in the life of the Episcopal Church
in the United States have caused suffering for many of you. I am very
clear that what occurred is in accord with our Constitution and is
widely regarded as a faithful action. However, as your brother I am
profoundly sorry for the wound this has caused within our body.
As I have said many times to the bishops of the Episcopal Church and
to others, what we do in one part of the Communion can have
significant consequences elsewhere. I remember vividly when we were
together last October at Lambeth hearing from some of you about
finding yourselves ridiculed and made a laughing stock because of your
association with the Episcopal Church. I completely understand why
some of you have spoken so harshly about what has occurred here. At
the same time, many of us who love you deeply in the Lord are
profoundly saddened that our fellowship is so severely strained, and
in some cases appears to be broken.
I pray that in spite of our differences, serious as they are, we can
discover together in this difficult time the truth of what we said in
our statement of last October that "what we hold in common is much
greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the
world." The prayer of my heart is that we can discover anew our unity
in service to God's mission through these difficulties. Our world,
which is so burdened by poverty, disease and civil strife, is much in
need of our common witness and action.
I regret that this communication is through a letter rather than a
conversation. I hope we as primates will encourage ongoing
conversations at all levels between people of our various provinces. I
do believe that as we explore what we share across our differences we
rediscover our common ground in service to God's continuing work of
reconciliation. In conversation our differences do not disappear.
Instead we find ourselves grounded upon the rock of Christ whose
deathless love is able to transform our mistrust and woundedness into
mutual care and affection.
It is my deepest sense that we have much to learn from one another,
particularly as we seek to proclaim the gospel in our often very
different contexts. The visits I have been privileged to make to
several of your provinces have certainly made that very plain, and I
have come away with an enlarged and deeper sense of how God is acting
in this world to save us all from the power of sin and death.
On another matter, I want to share with you the response of the
bishops of the Episcopal Church to the concern expressed in our
Lambeth statement of last October that there be "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." The bishops of the Episcopal Church are
called to be chief pastors for all people in their dioceses. They have
continued to shape a plan for pastoral care which they first put
forward in 2002.
They have addressed how bishops with different perspectives,
overseeing dioceses in which there are varying points of view, can
bear one another's burdens and uphold one another's ministries for the
sake of the gospel and its proclamation. When we met in March of this
year we further refined our plan, which was then agreed to by an
overwhelming majority. It is set forth in the enclosed document:
Caring for all the churches.
I am in conversation with a number of bishops, whose theological
perspectives meet the pastoral needs of "dissenting minorities," about
making themselves available to provide episcopal oversight at the
invitation of the diocesan bishop. As well, I know of several
instances where diocesan bishops have arranged or are about to arrange
for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.
Key to what we are trying to do at this time is the shared
understanding of our bishops that an episcopal ministry of care and
oversight is not a personal possession of any one bishop but is shared
by all bishops for the well being of the church as a whole.
Please pray for us as we pray for you in these days that challenge us
all in the various contexts in which the Lord has placed us.
This comes, as ever, with my love and prayers,
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
So, here he is trying to pick up the pieces caused by his failing to heed his peer's counsel in October and trying to salvage delegated oversight. This has been rejected as unworkable by conservative Episcopalians. As for greater Anglican opinion I will let the following letter speak for itself.
May 7, 2004
The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop
ECUSA
Dear Bishop Frank,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
I write in response to your letter of May 5th. Since it has found its
way all over the internet, I am constrained to respond more broadly
than just in a personal note.
With great respect it must be said that considering what you now write
in the light of what you have already done brings to mind the old
cliche of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It's like the doctor telling
the grieving family that the operation was a success even though the
patient has died.
You speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions
have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you
not see that there is an enormous contradiction here?
The key path to alleviating that pain is repentance. It is simple to
turn around and join the spiritual and doctrinal direction of the
Anglican Communion and the overwhelming majority of the Christians of
history and the world today.
When one considers that you were advised by the Lambeth Bishops
Conference, the ACC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury
that to proceed would bring a harvest of pain, it is hard to see why
you find the consequences you now experience surprising.
You indicate that the action of the General Convention was
constitutional. Of course I am not an expert in the Constitution and
Canons of ECUSA, but I do remember the commitment of your General
Convention to initiate an "inter-Anglican and ecumenical dialogue on
human sexuality issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal
Church on its own (B-020)." (A ten minute search of internet archives
shows that!) Many colleagues have also reminded me that you were clear
that the official position of ECUSA was parallel to that of Lambeth I.
10 at a number of Primates meetings. When was that changed, or was it
just ignored? Of course there is pain when you moved ahead in
violation of your own Convention decisions.
In addition, I saw the broadcast of objections to Gene Robinson's
consecration which were simply and totally ignored.
How can these be constitutional actions?
You cling to the statement that "what we hold in common is much
greater than that which divides us..." That statement was made before
you chose to be the chief consecrator at an event you knew would "tear
the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level."
At a time like this, simply celebrating what we hold in common is like
a man arguing before a judge that his offence should be overlooked
because he hasn't broken other laws.
You cannot offer a band aid to a person who needs open heart surgery.
The situation must be addressed at the root of the disorder. You don't
heal a disease by treating its symptoms.
You tell us that "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" is moving
toward solving the problem in your province. It is not so. First of
all it leaves the decisions in the hands of the offending bishops and
does not give any substantive protection to parishes that maintain
Anglican teaching and practice. In addition, we are aware of ECUSA
clergy and parishes who have been ordered by their revisionist bishops
not to ask for alternative oversight, threatened if they do, or who
live in areas where bishops have publicly stated that they will not
allow it. The fact that "some" bishops will arrange for Delegated
Episcopal Pastoral Oversight does not mean at all that it can be put
in place where it is really needed.
And when did those who hold to the apostolical, biblical faith and
practice of Christianity as accepted for 2000 years suddenly become
"dissidents"?
You now say that you want to be in conversation. In the light of your
previous great reticence to discuss the matter in our meetings this is
tragically late in the day.
ECUSA's actions have caused a great and unnecessary crisis in the
Anglican Communion that has spilled over into culture, ecumenical
affairs, and even interfaith relations. It is tragic and painful
indeed. It is the result of your actions and it is also reversible.
You have insisted on autonomy from the Lambeth resolutions, from the
Archbishop of Canterbury's plea, from the ACC, and from the Primates
to pursue an agenda that is absolutely scandalous to most Christians.
That view of autonomy is the opposite of everything Anglicanism has
always stood for. Why would you still want to call yourself Anglican?
May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican
norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you.
May God guide us in love and truth at this crucial and sad time.
+Greg
The Most Revd Gregory J. Venables
Primate of the Southern Cone of the Americas
