OFFICIAL DOCUMENT: Steps of discipline to be taken by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

A Proposal from the Primates of the Global South & The Anglican Communion Institute as constructed in Nairobi, Kenya, Fall 2003

Preamble: In this meeting the Primates speak as the spiritual leaders of the Communion, in full reaffirmation of Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10; and of our related commitments made in Brazil in 2003 on the question of same-sex blessings; and in response to the Lambeth resolutions calling for enhanced responsibility and intervention in emergency situations (Lambeth 1988 Resolution 18:2a; Virginia Report 4:19, 27; 5:15; 6:IV; Lambeth 1998 III:6).

As a consequence of these commitments to the Anglican family, we seek as guardians of the faith to address "issues that affect the unity of the universal church [...] and that need a Communion-wide mind if a life of interdependence is to be preserved" (Virginia Report 4:19).

We desire an Episcopal Church, U.S.A that is fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us. We desire an Anglican Church of Canada that is united within itself, and that also remains fully part of the Communion, in integrity of faith and spirit, and embracing the teachings that unite us.

We seek by actions that are gradual, inviting, faithful, and firm to avoid chaos and a wilderness of litigation within our common life.

We also seek to behave as a Communion in a way that maintains a faithful witness in life and teachings to the Holy Scriptures, to the universal teaching of the Christian Church on marriage and abstinence, and to the truth of God that informs all cultures and nations in their moral vocation in matters of sexuality. In this way we seek to found our mission and sharing of the Gospel of Christ with integrity. [Please see our summary sheet attached to this proposal and the booklet Claiming Our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, U.S.A..] A.

Concerning the Emergency Situation in ECUSA The emergency situation has arisen from: Consent by both Houses of the 74th General Convention (finalized in August 5, 2003) to the election as Bishop of New Hampshire of a self-professed homosexual man, living openly in a sexual partnership with another man for 13 years, having divorced his wife and left the family home.

Passage at the same Convention of Resolution C-051, that included in its 5th Resolve the following: "we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions." Other portions of the resolution recognized sexual partnerships outside of marriage and called on the church to exercise appropriate pastoral care in their regard.

The Primates Meeting of the Communion agrees that: In the decisions of the 74th General Convention confirming the election of Canon Gene Robinson and passing the resolution concerning same-sex blessings, ECUSA has departed from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and posed "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July 2002).

Such decisions disrupt our churches throughout the world and have strained our ecumenical and interfaith relations in many parts of the globe where the church struggles to survive. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. Discipline must address the following concerns in two stages:

Stage One - Emergency Action We call on Canon Gene Robinson to withdraw from his proposed consecration. We call on the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New Hampshire to rescind its approval of Canon Gene Robinson's nomination for election, prior to November 2, 2003.

Independent of the above: We call on Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold to repudiate the House of Bishops' vote for consent to Canon Robinson's election and for Resolution C-051, both in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of confirming Canon Robinson's election to repudiate their action in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on the bishops who voted in favor of C-051 to repudiate that resolution in writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to November 2.

We call on current ECUSA bishops to reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, as confirmed in previous General Conventions and House of Bishops Meetings (i.e. General Convention 1979 and House of Bishops 1977) by not condoning or permitting the public use of rites of same-sex blessings and by refusing to ordain practicing homosexuals.

We call on these bishops to fulfill their commitment as stated in General Convention 1991 Resolution B-020 to avoid unilateral action in the area of the church's teaching on sexual behavior and to engage in formal "pan- Anglican and ecumenical consultation", even while, in the spirit of Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10.c, we together "commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons" and "assure them that they are loved by God".

Those who gave consent at General Convention or voted for C-051 are reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote). We will not recognize the ministry of Gene Robinson as a bishop; he will have no standing in the councils of the Communion.

Those bishops participating in the consecration of Gene Robinson will have their further participation in the Communion suspended. Emergency mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting dioceses, parishes, and clergy who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion, including those parishes and clergy located in dioceses where the bishop is under discipline by the Communion.

The period between November 2, 2003 and Easter, 2004 is intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. This should be a period of Communion-wide prayer. If our call is not heeded, after Easter, 2004:

The ECUSA bishops who uphold a commitment to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the church will continue to have full participation in the affairs of the Communion, including voice and vote in the councils of the Communion.

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

These will include reassessment of resources, the way appropriate ministries are funded, and the redirection of monies. Annual reports will be brought to the Primates Meeting by their designated committee regarding the shape and condition of the reorganized ECUSA.

We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ.

The Primates Meeting agrees that the action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster in June, 2002 to approve same-sex blessings, and the implementation of liturgies of blessing by the bishop in May, 2003, constitute a departure from the Holy Scriptures and the historic faith and order of the church and pose "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Letter to Primates, 23 July, 2002).

The Primates Meeting agrees that: The action of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster has led to division and a state of pastoral emergency. For the sake of preserving the Communion and the integrity of its witness, and in line with the Biblical position of restoring a member to koinonia within the family, disciplinary action must be taken. This discipline will take the following form:

o Bishop Ingham is reduced to observer status in the Communion (no voice, no vote).

o We consider plans by Bishop Ingham to offer oversight under his own authority - that of a bishop under discipline by the Primates Meeting - to be unacceptable. In order to be acceptable, measures for Episcopal Oversight of those parishes in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historical faith and order of the Communion must be implemented in coordination with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primates, and the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada who have remained in conformity with the expressed will of the Communion.

o Mechanisms will be implemented for relating to and protecting parishes and clergy in New Westminster who maintain a commitment to the historic faith and order of the Communion.

o We express concern over the way discipline and alternative Episcopal Oversight is being offered in the Diocese of New Westminster and in the Province of British Columbia and Yukon.

o These disciplinary actions are intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ. The Holy Scriptures and the Teaching of the Church Universal on Human Sexuality The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments present a consistent word about God's intention for human sexuality. God creates humanity in His image, male and female (Gen. 1:27). He orders humankind to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Marriage is instituted by God as a means of furthering His creative will for humanity as a whole (Gen. 2:18; Mark 10:6-9). The disobeying of God's will brings about a disordering of human nature (Gen. Chaps. 3-4ff.). This leads to different kinds of rebellion against God. For instance, sexual relations between male and male, or female and female, contradict God's intention, and bring God's judgment (Gen. Chaps. 18-19). God is merciful and long-suffering, however, and He presents a plan for the maintaining of His creative will and good purpose, through His choosing of Israel, His bride, and the provision of His good law (Exod. 20:1ff.). In this law, God's will for creation, male and female, is reaffirmed (Lev. 18:21). Moral law is not for Israel alone, but extends to the neighbor in her midst and includes sexual conduct (Lev. 18:26-27). In the fullness of time, God sends His only Son to bring to fulfillment a creative plan which was from the beginning, overcoming sin and estrangement in the world (Col. 1). God's Son, Jesus Christ, gives His life for the Church, for the redeeming of the world. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Within the Church, for the blessing of the world, male and female are to be in a covenant relationship of marriage that reflects God's eternal purpose (Eph.5:21-33). Sin and rebellion continue to thwart this design, and homosexual practice continues to be viewed as a clear rebellion against God's created purpose (Rom. 1:18-24; 1 Tim. 1:10).

This view of Scripture and of God's intention was viewed by the early Church as plain. It was considered by the Fathers, East and West, as the continuous and clear teaching of the prophets and apostles.

Homosexual practice is widely condemned by the Fathers in language that flows from this understanding of Scripture's clarity, in this and other realms of moral practice.

The cultural contexts of the early Church's mission were diverse; so, too, the expressions of homosexual conduct in these contexts. It is wrong, therefore, to describe modern homosexual conduct as different in kind from the reality addressed by the Scriptures and the early Church.

What early Christians knew about homosexual life and conduct was not different from what we know today. It is for this reason that churches which understand themselves to be apostolic and catholic (e.g. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic) have reacted to the decisions of ECUSA's General Convention, in the area of homosexual approval, with immediate, forceful, and plain statements of denunciation and rebuke.

The continuous teaching of the Church is seen by them, rightly, to be under assault. In these circumstances the purpose and hope of ecumenical discussion has been subverted. The Church cannot be one in witness to the world when, in the area of Scripture's plain sense as received and passed on by the apostles, there has been introduced innovation and heresy as General Convention has done.

The notion that homosexuality is a particular cultural feature of the West, misunderstood and un-experienced by other modern world cultures, is wrong. African, Asian, and other non-Western cultures have the language, the lifestyle, and the support-systems for homosexuality familiar to the West.

Christian churches in these places wrestle with bringing all sexual conduct into conformity with Holy Scripture's plain sense and the teaching of the Church Universal, with the same challenges as the West.

The Primates of the Global South receive this as the plain teaching of Holy Scripture, passed on by the apostles, received and taught as God's word by the Church Universal, and applicable in all parts of the Anglican Communion. As such it forms an integral and unassailable part of our mission in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.

Is it just me or does this appear to have been written prior to the "Abomination of Consecration?"

It was. This particular item is part of a larger plan that was constructed in the belief that things would unfold pretty exactly the way they have.

The key point of the whole document, as regards ECUSA, is the following response to Griswold's inevitable, "so what are you going to do about it?"

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

This little paragraph is just jam-packed with implications.

For example, it points out that the because the ECUSA is, by Canon and Constitution, supposed to be in communion with Canterbury and the other Provinces, "the ECUSA" is whoever the Communion says it is!!! Thus, Griswold -- being set apart from ECUSA in this manner -- has no control over properties. The same is theoretically true for bishops who are not in communion.

Also, the Primate-designated committee is basically charged with overseeing the repentence of apostate bishops, and for the election of "communionable" bishops should an apostate choose not to repent.

All of this will undoubtedly find its way into the courts at some point, but the theory is that because the rules of membership are a) clear, and b) internal to ECUSA, the apostates can't win. (I'm less sanguine about it -- they can go judge-shopping....)

The key to the whole mess is Rowan Williams's response. Will he back Griswold and Ingham (and follow his own personal preference), and thus destroy the Communion?

Or will he grant the authority of Scripture, go against Griswold, bow to the Queen's wishes, preserve the Communion, and thus establish Canterbury as more than "first among equals" (becoming a de facto pope, in many ways)?

One would hope that the decision is obvious -- however, Williams being an "intellectual," one has to wonder....

Here is what I have been thinking about today:

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."*
1 Corinthians 5:9-13

It could be the mother of all judge shopping. Secular judges will be asked to rule in cases involving accused heretics vs. the religious orthodox, and then there's the gay issue thrown in to really motivate media coverage. What kind of judge would the Pluriform One and his favorite Beers perfer? An agnostic? A hostile atheist? A hot dog like Judge Ito? A Hindu that thinks both sides are silly? Aargh........the headaches!

OK.

Two things. First, I have had my own large misgivings about the ABC. However, I have spoken with people who have had in-person direct conversations with him. He has, indeed, had his "Becket moment." While he is still publicly trying to advocate for unity -- which, BTW is encumbent unpon him -- his bottom line is the handing on of the Faith of the Church beyond his personal opinions. The guy is not just merely a fuzzy "archdruid;" when the chips are down he really does believe the Creeds, etc. -- and *all* the chips are now totally down. (Also, it has become pretty much of an "open secret" that it was HRM herself who nixed the Johns thing). Could we therefore do just a little hoping for the best here?

But the point I came here to make is this:

My own deepest, dearest hope is the following section of the primates' alleged agenda:

"The period between November 2, 2003 and Easter, 2004 is intended to lead to sober consideration, repentance, and conformity to the expressed will of the Communion. This should be a period of Communion-wide prayer. If our call is not heeded, after Easter, 2004:

The ECUSA bishops who uphold a commitment to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the church will continue to have full participation in the affairs of the Communion, including voice and vote in the councils of the Communion.

These bishops and their dioceses will be designated to be in full communion with the See of Canterbury, and will thereby constitute the Episcopal Church, U. S. A., empowered to act under that church's own Constitution and Canons. The Primates Meeting will designate a committee to work with the sole-designated ECUSA during this transition period, for repentance, renewal, reconciliation, and reform. Concrete steps reflecting this realignment of the Communion will commence at Easter, 2004.

These will include reassessment of resources, the way appropriate ministries are funded, and the redirection of monies. Annual reports will be brought to the Primates Meeting by their designated committee regarding the shape and condition of the reorganized ECUSA.

We stand behind this proposal and firmly believe before God that these decisions must be enacted for the sake of our Communion's unity and faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the historic faith and order of the Church of Christ."

OH to live to SEE this DAY!!! I would dance in the streets!

This question goes out to anyone who has any real info: How reliable is this thing? David being David, I can't help but wonder where he got it from.

Can this document be truly verified? If it is real, I can hang on until Easter, and Christmas will be a lot jollier. I could use some sunshine here, and I guess I am a little afraid to grab it after all we have been through.

So --- any input concerning reliability, friends and neighbors?

Best regards.

"For example, it points out that the because the ECUSA is, by Canon and Constitution, supposed to be in communion with Canterbury and the other Provinces, "the ECUSA" is whoever the Communion says it is!!! Thus, Griswold -- being set apart from ECUSA in this manner -- has no control over properties. The same is theoretically true for bishops who are not in communion."

Thanks for the detailed analysis. This is huge. (And foreshadows what might be even bigger and more interesting legal battles than we have expected.) It looks like the primates are really coming through.

You wrote "I'm a bit slow (jet-lagged) this morning: Does this mean that half or more of the ECUSA bishops are already "outside"?"

yes but

1. they will refuse to acknowledge that until repeatedly hit over the head with it, (as in, say, for several months to a year) and then they will prance around claiming victim status, because of the VRWC / VoAC.

and

2. since all of the senior ecusa leadership (i.e. frank the heretic, david both-beers, and their cronies) watch them fight tooth and nail to gain what they're really after - total control of all ecusa real estate and endowments. Remember that once this is recognized officially, the apostate bishops will have nothing to lose but the few remaining shreds of dignity left between them...and that's not enough to stop any of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.