Contributing to the Anglican Commission on homosexuality

Do you have a contribution (and we hope you do) to make to the Eames Commission? If so, this is a very significant place to make it.

Contributions made through this website will be forwarded to the Eames Commission for their consideration. The Commission is accepting contributions from all parts of the Communion and your ideas will be read and considered.

Please read both the Commission's Key Questions and Anglican Mainstream's Comments.

Taking into account work on issues of communion carried out by Lambeth Conferences 1988 and 1998, and the views of the Primates Meetings since 2000:

1. What are (a) the legal and (b) the theological implications flowing from ECUSA decision to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops? (See LC 1998 Res. I.10)

2. What are (a) the legal and (b) the theological implications of the decision of the diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same sex unions?

3. What are the canonical understandings of (a) communion, (b) impaired communion and (c) broken communion? (What is autonomy and how is it related to communion?)

4. How (do and) may provinces relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion?

5. What practical solutions might there be to maintain the highest degree of communion that may be possible, in the circumstances resulting from these two decisions, within the individual churches involved? (eg [alternative] episcopal oversight when full communion is threatened)

6. What practical solutions might there be to maintain the highest degree of communion that may be possible, in the circumstances resulting from these two decisions, as between the churches of the Anglican Communion? (eg [alternative] episcopal oversight when full communion is threatened)

7. Under (a) what circumstances, (b) what conditions, and (c) by what means, might it be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of pastoral oversight, support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province to maintain communion between Canterbury and that province? (see LC 1998, Res. IV.13)

8. Under (a) what circumstances, (b) what conditions, and (c) by what means, might it be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of pastoral oversight, support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province to maintain communion between that province and the rest of the Anglican Communion? (see LC Res. IV.13)

The following fundamental questions contribute to answering the above and Anglican Mainstream will be making a submission that reflects on these. Your contribution to these questions would be most important:

With your house-group, other church members, your family, please make your contribution to this most important process.

(A) straightforward one page contribution direct to the Eames website and to the AM website (B) a fuller/longer version sent to the AM website (C) comments or commentaries which are not intended for forwarding to the Commission.

Anglican Mainstream will publish appropriate submissions on its website to stimulate and facilitate this process.

PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO POST YOUR RESPONSE ON THE ANGLICAN MAINSTREAM SITE!(see the referenced for this article - the one you can click on) The more the better!

Here are some of the responses already received by Anglican Mainstream on their website and posted at

http://eames.anglican-mainstream.net/your%20contrib.asp

. What are the a) legal and b) theological implications flowing from the ECUSA decision to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops?

a) The legal implications

"If all the American bishops refuse (to reject the ordination of V. Gene Robinson) then they should by all means be excommunicated as constituent members of the Anglican Communion. It will be necessary to preserve the faith and unity of the Church, the authority of Holy Scripture, our evangelical witness and catholic orthodoxy.

"We should ask through the Primates Council for the Archbishop of Canterbury to recognise a completely new Anglican province in the United States: a complete replacement of ECUSA, in communion with the rest of the Anglican Communion

"The only way forward is to utilise the doctrine of 'apostolic succession, locally adapted' and form a new Anglican province in the United States from the ashes of ECUSA. We can begin with those bishops who voted 'no' on Robinson's confirmation, as well as parishes who wish to affiliate.

"We should next seek recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury and from the Primates' Council. We should ask them to appoint a retired primate agreeable to them and to us to be the Presiding Bishop.

"We should keep our current diocesan structures. Parishes and dioceses should be given the choice of whether or not to affiliate with the Anglican Communion. Affiliated parishes in non-affiliated dioceses will receive the oversight of "missionary bishops", appointed by the Presiding Bishop. Likewise, unaffiliated parishes in affiliated dioceses should be given their property and assets and left to pursue their separate path. Parishes of whatever stripe should be allowed to keep their buildings, their endowments and carry them forward into their new existence."

"Churches will chose to affiliate with ECUSA or with the Anglican Episcopal Church (the wider Communion). The purpose is to allow a church home for all Christians who embrace the Episcopal expression of Christian faith as their best path to a closer relationship with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This will be easier in dioceses where the bishop is leading his congregations into the Anglican (Communion) expression. He/she can facilitate a smoother transition for everyone. Hopefully he can also assist those who would choose to make the Episcopal church USA their home church affiliation."

"It is harder where the Bishop chooses to keep his dioceses in the ECUSA expression. Hopefully most of these Bishops will make information available and assist each congregation in making a choice. He should also provide the assistance necessary to make the transition. There must be a mechanism for extricating those churches who wish to affiliate with the Anglican expression from this diocese.

"There must be provision agreed between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ECUSA Presiding Bishop for the transfer of property according to the will of each congregation to the affiliation of that congregation's choice. Usually these dissolutions are like divorce: the ultimate battleground is money and property.

"The hardest provision will be for those who wish to affiliate with the Anglican Communion expression, but in communities where there is only one church property and that church chooses to remain in the ECUSA. A small group will probably be there that could form a home church ministered to by a travelling priest."

We need to distinguish between pastoral care for all, and the need to maintain the standards that I believe are set by God in Holy Scripture. I do not believe that humanity has the authority to determine what God's standards are. By doing so, we take away the issue of sin, repentance, and mercy/forgiveness. Without sin, there is no need for repentance.

I do not believe the sins of a sexual nature between two consenting adults, are any more grievous in God's eyes then are sins of greed, hate, etc. Sin is sin, and in a holy God's eyes, sin will always distance the sinner from Him.

I do not support the ordination of professing gay and lesbian persons to the priesthood, as long as they insist on calling their sexual relations to be without sin. If the gay and lesbian community were to say, that their sexuality is sinful, but that God's mercy is sufficient and that He has called them to the priesthood, I would have a hard time theologically standing in the way, sinner that I am. But by insisting that Scripture is not opposed, and ignoring the clear evidence and witness of Holy Scripture, and forcing me to believe that black is white and white is black, they can never win my allegiance. What is wrong with calling sin, sin, and saying isn't it marvellous that God chooses sinners to be priests, since that is all He has to work with.

b) the theological implications

"ECUSA violated the agreement it made to wait on any actions over these issues until the World Wide Anglican Communion could present the findings of a study. It has broken faith with the WWAC and therefore declared it believes it to be irrelevant."

"The Anglican way to develop theology should be the trifold authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, and this decision flaunted at least Scripture and tradition, it is no longer compatible with Anglican theology."

ECUSA's profound disregard for the welfare of the Church throughout the world.

The eroding of the historic and traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture and the disregard of the same is most damaging to the Communion with regard to maintaining a standard of moral theology and practice of faith in holy matrimony.

The insistence on the legitimation of the union of same sexes without the approval of the world communion of Christian theologians is tantamount to an act of idolatry that is repugnant to our Lord and Saviour.

Jesus told the Sadducees that there will not be a physical sexual component of our life together in heaven. Thus we must be trained on earth to expect and approach a life of greater joy in companionship with each other, owning a deeper love than any known on earth, and realising that a state of bliss that comes from divine and holy love that craves not the lust of the flesh. We therefore on earth need to wean ourselves from the oversexualisation of our cultures and cultivate the spiritual and holy companionship of our heaven-bound relationships. The movement of same-sex unions is in direct opposition to this modeling of heavenly behaviours. Two members of the same sex may have a holy companionship as real friends, but when the act of concupisence occurs, the holiness of their companionship is denigrated and derailed.

Recalling the vows that Bishops make regarding a promise to not participate in anything that would be divisive to the Church, I'm in awe how one could honestly, faithfully, and prayerfully assume the role of Bishop knowing the result of such a controversial issue would be division within the Episcopal Church.

I have been upset by the assumption that an "orthodox" Anglican is seen by some as anti-gay. As an imperfect human I see myself in the mainstream of varied humanity. The two options of celibacy or heterosexual marriage are the highest of vocations, and deserve support, honour and recognition. I do not support openly gay priests or bishops who live in an active relationship. I have no problem with celibate priests, or bishops. Indeed many gay friends have told me that as they mature into age and spiritual wisdom , a gift of celibacy may be given to them, freeing them to become clerics. Over the course of people’s whole lives, many of the traditional values of the universal church suddenly become more sensible. The Church should move much more strongly towards the Orthodox Churches of the East (Greek, Russian etc) as there are many similarities with Anglicanism.

2. What are the a) legal and b) theological implications of the decision of the diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same-sex unions?

Group 2 - Nature of Break

3. What are the canonical understandings of a) communion, b) impaired communion and c) broken communion? (What is autonomy and how is it related to communion?).

"The sacraments and orders are interchangeable among the various parts of the AC. Although the provinces govern themselves, they all hold to common beliefs and shared liturgical practices."

"It is up to the authority of each province how to relate to another province that is not in full communion. Another possibility is that if a large number of provinces are not in communion with the same provinces they may agree that the offending province is not a part of the Communion.

"There is an immediate need for the Anglican Communion to establish a means to facilitate contributions to provinces such as Uganda where the financial need is substantial and the province does not consider itself able to accept contributions from another part of the Anglican Communion. It has been reported that the Anglicans in Uganda prefer not to accept contributions from ECUSA out of concern that ECUSA wishes to use those funds to influence Ugandan Christianity in unacceptable ways.

I propose that the Anglican Communion establish a fund that can accept contributions from ECUSA and any other province so situated and make those funds available to Anglicans in Uganda for some such purpose that may be acceptable to the Ugandan church."

It will be so important to recognize the Network of Confessing Dioceses as the Episcopal Church USA and not those who have broken the faith. The word episcopal is not so important to win or lose, but if we who remain faithful to the Anglican Communion are to change our name, that implies we have done something different. Let those who wish to write their own new scripture, their own new constitution, their own new canons, let them write their own new name that then tells the world, “we have chosen something different from the Anglican Communion”.

Group 3 - Seeking the highest degree of Communion

5. What practical solutions might there be to maintain the highest degree of communion that may be possible, in the circumstances resulting from these two decisions, within individual churches involved ? (e.g. [alternative] episcopal oversight when full communion is threatened?)

"An alternative province representing the same geographical area of the offending province might be established which would be in Communion with the other provinces. Or parishes, dioceses or individuals might choose to align themselves with another province. Or an alternative diocese or entity within the offending province which conforms to the World Wide Anglican Communion might be established which would be recognised by the WWAC."

"Anglican communion is communion with Christ by means of his body and his blood. It is also an impressive reminder of God's love for us fallible sinners. We are to examine ourselves before we take this body and this blood in the bread and wine. It is holy and to the best of one's ability one must examine oneself as to any sins which may have been committed before one partakes of Holy Communion. It also means that repentance, forgiveness and confession are imperative before taking communion."

No provision of "adequate episcopal oversight" will truly be "adequate" the authority of the presiding bishop and of the General Convention is subject to being refused on matters of faith and theological principles. Further, using issues of property ownership to thwart the theological conviction and will of a faithful parish will not be tolerated by the Communion, and resources of the wider Communion must be brought to bear in support of parishes which find themselves threatened by ECUSA in this way.

As an ordinary Anglican, and non theologian, I am anxious that an open communion is maintained in the Anglican Communion, for who can see inside anyone’s heart but God? God’s table must be open to all baptised Christians with love.

6. What practical solutions might there be to maintain the highest degree of communion that may be possible, in the circumstances resulting from these two decisions, as between the churches of the Anglican Communion? (e.g. [alternative] episcopal oversight when full communion is threatened?)

We seek out reconciliation and communicate with groups of Anglican/Episcopal congregations that have left the ECUSA. i.e. the APA, RECUS, Episcopal Missionary and others.

We need to investigate a congregation model that is less centralized. a model that includes the best elements of centralized and congregational.

What is in a name?

Do we really say anything in declaring ourselves part of the Anglican Communion? Should we, as Anglicans, stand apart from any other historic associations?

To be without or lack meaning is, yet even in this postmodern world, to be meaningless - utterly insignificant. And that is the very antithesis of what it means to be a Christian.

"I believe in . . . the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints," declares the Apostle's Creed, the most ecumenical symbol of all the creeds of Christendom. The "Church" of the Apostle's Creed being, of course, a reference to the Church of our Lord, Jesus Christ which consists of those called forth and assembled out of the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, the very Son of God. It was and is unto these believers, the so-called "Saints," that the keys to the gates of heaven have been entrusted, and it is against their assemblage that hell itself shall not prevail. Only among and between Christ and these "Saints" does the term "Communion" and the resulting fellowship rightly apply or have any true meaning. Absent agreement upon who Christ is and what His purpose was, is, and will be, there can be no meaningful communion, Anglican or otherwise. Such and no less is the problem confronting the Anglican Communion.

What beliefs do we hold in common? If we be not an assemblage bound together by those beliefs which have united and defined all of Christianity for the past two thousand years, then are we nothing more than a historic alliance, subject to the whims of culture, the continued existence of which is dependent upon and subject to changing societal values.

It is up to you, [the Commission], to determine whether the claim to our allegiance is made on behalf of a religion or a philosophy. A true religion will last, philosophies and false teaching have and will come and go. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.

Group 4 - The Archbishop of Canterbury's role of reconciliation

7. Under a) what circumstances, b) what conditions and c) by what means, might it be appropriate for the ABC to exercise an extraordinary ministry of pastoral oversight, support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province to maintain communion between Canterbury and that province? (See LC 1988 res IV.13).

"The ABC should not exercise authority by himself in these conditions but rather with the agreement of a commission of primates, if not all the rest of the primates representing the main body of the WWAC. He should not act like a Pope."

8. Under a) what circumstances, b) what conditions and c) by what means might it be appropriate for the ABC to exercise an extraordinary ministry of pastoral oversight, support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province to maintain communion between that province and the rest of the Anglican Communion? (See LC Res IV.13).

"We are either a communion or a loose affiliation of individually thinking provinces. Choosing the latter tells the world that we are not really serious about proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Choosing the former dictates that the Communion as a whole must have a veto power over those provinces that choose to ignore the wishes of the whole. The entire AC should vote on any perceived 'rebellions' and the party in question be instructed to comply with the majority's wishes. If that party refuses to comply, then excommunicate that party, and welcome those who may choose to form a replacement province"

"Our motive must always be evident to the world - Christ's invitation to enjoy the fulness of the Kingdom is not subject to the whims of those who are unduly influence by secular society. Christ is the role model. Jesus did not go to the cross as a result of being a mediator that grasped and adopted every human thought that came along. He agitated others and called them unflattering names. We cannot fully proclaim the Gospel while simultaneously coddling others merely to 'keep peace'. Getting along is not an end in itself."

"Only if the province asks for it. If it does not, the province is on its own. The development of an alternative province may not be able to be prevented."

I would very simply suggest that the Commission consider an Anglican Ecumenical Synod. In the spirit synods convened through the Church's history (Vatican II being the most recent). This could include all four orders of the church (bishops, priests, deacons, and the laity). The synod would need to be at least 2 months in length for exhaustive debate to take place. The synod could be held in place of Lambeth 2008 with the years between (2005 - 2007) spent in preparation. Commissions could finally do the work on fully defining Anglican Ecclesiology. Perhaps penultimate understandings of collegiality, authority, ordination, and communion could be achieved. The Church's greatest strength is in her councils. At the same time we might jump start the stalled ecumenical dialogue by involving the Chalcedonians and the Romans.

Other Considerations

Concern for children

"Some felt it best to find another church for the sake of their children … with kids you cannot risk their spiritual growing years".

It's difficult to know how to teach my grandchildren and schoolchildren Jesus Christ ministry according to the Bible, as well as to instil Christian values gaining strength from a sacramental journey in faith, when all that has had meaning in my Christian journey is being overthrown by worldly values gaining greater authority over Episcopal Church leadership than God's authority.

Anglican Mainstream's Questions

What is the Anglican Communion for?

"Although the cultures ( I have travelled in many continents and countries) showed our beliefs differently, I always felt I was home in the Anglican tradition. The communion allows us to share our beliefs worldwide, along with our clergy, religious liturgies and sacraments. We are one everywhere."

Denominations are a creation of humanity’s honorable attempt to please God. I do not believe they, in themselves, are important.

Humanity living to please and bless God, thus bringing him glory, is our very purpose to be created. I do believe the Anglican Communion’s purpose is to bless God and I do believe it blesses God in many ways

1. It’s teachings recognize Jesus as the savior of us all and acknowledge that there is no other way to the Father. Certainly, this pleases God.

2. It holds to the full authority of scripture and furthermore takes exceptional measures with scholarly faithful men and women to interpret those scriptures accurately and with accountability to one another.

3. It has gathered the faithful from all parts of the earth. Despite our American gluttonous lifestyles we want to remain in the Communion. Am I a sinner? Yes, but I confess and repent to keep my accounts short with God. I don’t think my sin is “okay”. I call it sin, confess repent, and ask the Holy Spirit to fill me to overcome sinful habits.

What do we want our family of churches to be, to look like and do?

"Although we share a core of common beliefs, our expression varies in different cultures, between high and low parishes, charismatics, anglo-catholic, large and small. The opportunity to create a variety of expression is part of our nature; so no uniform picture of an Anglican parish is imposed on us. But I would like all Anglicans to be welcome in all Anglican parishes and provinces."

"We have strong reasons for wanting to remain in the Anglican family:

The Holy Communion

The way time and place are consecrated by the festivals of the seasons and the parish network

Being part of a truly worldwide church family, a unique governance which for all its untidiness strikes some sort of balance between unity and local freedom and creativity.

The fact that for most Anglicans the gospel is instinctively about communal and societal transformation as well as individual regeneration.

We would love to belong, but we feel ill at ease and embarrassed by the church of which we are supposed to be a part.

The emerging solution seems to be for parallel jurisdictions. Such solutions will have no limit to them and will not in the long run make for a more Christ-like church, but will simply institutionalise further our various ignorances and vices.

The only way to build unity across denominations is relationally and therefore locally, by free consent and little by little. Through prayer and love, the Holy Spirit will build unity. To allow this to happen our bishops need the courage to renounce the pretence that they are the source of some kind of unique charism and authority that flows out from them and through the parochial clergy.

God does give his servants these charisms. But there are no institutional guarantees. God can build up and destroy, if he wills. The Holy Spirit blows where he wills. Charisms can be withdrawn. Nothing in this life is guaranteed free from corruption and error. Our trust needs to be in Christ, not in man-made structures of grace an authority, however venerable.

Bishops then cease to be imposers of unity and become instead the servants of unity, people raised up and set apart to work for unity and truth, by prayer, preaching, by faith and example. They should be encouraged to bow out, like governments, if they lose or fail to gain the confidence of most of those they are set apart to serve. Such bishops would have to work for the acceptance of local congregations rather than presume upon their loyalty. The functions of discipline and regulation would pass wholly to representative local bodies and national synods. You do not need heavy top-down medieval structures in order to maintain corporate coherence and give an effective national expression to your faith. "

Encouraging Comments

"I am so pleased at the tone of your communications. There is not a confrontational attitude, but there is a resolute determination in all your statements. Hopefully, we can follow your lead."

"I will consider your idea of starting my own small group - I have pursued this alone until now"

"Thank you for taking input from ordinary people as well as some of our brightest and best theological scholars".

Submissions covering several points

There are existing means to maintain Communion between the various parts of the Anglican Communion, these are based on reasonable biblical and traditional models and ECUSA has clearly and knowingly rejected them. This rejection has therefore caused breakage of communion. It is not reasonable to expect that you can reject the mechanisms of communion and then try to say that it is the other provinces who are breaking communion with you. Even worse would be the communion now trying to invent some new mechanism to keep ECUSA in. Unfortunately, "compromise" positions which leave communion breakers within the Communion would amount to trying to insist that a "break" issue is just "impairment" (ie the "local option" so favoured by liberals and unacceptable to traditionalists/evangelicals). Such an outcome will drive out of the Communion the people most willing to work hard to support & preserve it, and leave inside those who just demonstrated that they do not actually value it!

The numbers in brackets refer to Principles which are listed after.

Q1 & 2. ECUSA and the DoNW can be said to have clearly "broken communion" by rejecting the existing mechanisms (6a) for resolution for important controversies (4d) on an issue which nearly all biblical scholars agree is against general biblical teachings (4a & recent "Some Issues" document), and so can't be agreed to be "disputable". Provinces can probably claim a right to discipline Dioceses that change doctrine, morality or discipline in ways that would "break" with the Communion. However, if a Province is making such changes, it's Dioceses should be free to dissent.

Q3. All humans and human organisations have autonomy. Christianity and communion require voluntary submission to God and each other (6b). Unwillingness to do this on a spiritual level breaks communion with God, and on an organisational level breaks communion with the Communion. Where a change can be agreed by both the Communion and the Innovator to be "disputable and non-core" (4b) there might exist a long-term state of "impaired" communion (eg women priests?).

Q4 & 5. Communion breaking Provinces might be assigned similar status to other organisations with which the Communion has a relationship (or other religions - depending on the issues in dispute). There remains the issue of component parts of Provinces (Dioceses and parishs etc - presumably minorities) who wish to remain Anglicans. The mother body, on leaving the Communion, should be compelled to allow component parts freedom, and the Communion should recognise the formation of alternative structures independent of the (now non-Anglican) structure which has broken communion.

Q6. The highest degree of Communion possible with a previously Anglican organisation that has broken communion could be the same as that accorded other equivalent non-Anglican organisations.

Q7 & 8. The Archbishop of Canterbury should have definitive authority only by virtue of decisions taken by the Communion ie Primates Meetings / Lambeth Conferences (4c & 4d). This authority might extend only to official reconciliation, recognition or derecognition of Provinces by the Anglican Communion (and therefore their Primate/Bishops' inclusion in Primates Meetings & Lambeth Confs).

These answers are based on the following principles that should govern what we want the Anglican Communion to be and do?

1. The Anglican Church is a Christian Church; this implies an exclusive commitment to Christianity. We are Anglican; this implies some commonalities & excludes non-Anglican Christianity.

2. Christianity should be defined by starting from the religion initiated by the Christ, not by starting from the current experience of people who define themselves as Christians. Other religions and philosophies must be allowed to define themselves as non-Christian.

3. Similarly Anglicanism should be defined by starting from the founding documents and structures (Articles, BCP), rather than starting from the difficult situation we currently find ourselves in.

4. Christian Doctrine, Morality & Discipline: The history of Christian disagreements reveals several mechanisms for resolution which seem to be biblical, christian and reasonable: appeals to scripture, traditions and reasoned interpretations (Rom15:4, 2Tim3:14-17. Some issues have been seen to be disputable/non-core, and left to conscience (Rom14): "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." Individual leaders have issued opinions, based on 4a (Rom14:14, 1Cor7:8-14) Councils of leaders (Acts15/Gal2:10, Nicea) have recognised Churches and Leaders, made Credal Statements and decided Important Issues (Nicene Creed, 39 Articles, BCP)

5. Scripture, Tradition and Reason: A reasonable definition of Christianity demands that the Bible, and especially teachings of Christ and His Apostles, are uniquely sovereign. It may in some cases be reasonable to reinterpret the application of scripture in genuinely changed circumstances, but it must be unreasonable (for a Christian) to reject or ignore scriptural teachings to suit their prejuduces.

6. The gift of Communion should be recognised as more than a historical-political accident: To initially establish communion, many constituent Anglican Provinces made declarations based on the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), recognition by Canterbury and, later, their Bishops' membership of the Lambeth conference / Primates meeting. Remaining members of a Christian Communion, as also a church, implies a willingness to submit to one another, to work to preserve the unity of the body, even at a cost to oneself.

Implications Both ECUSA and New Westminster have deliberately and unilaterally

Rejected the uniquely revealed Word of God in the Scriptures and as set forth in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds

Rejected the Historic Formularies of the Anglican Church (the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal)

Rejected the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality.

Rejected the counsel of the Primates Meeting of 15th and 16th October 2003

ECUSA and New Westminster have thereby intentionally placed themselves outside the fellowship of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

We request that the Commission formally recognize this reality.

Communion The canonical understanding of Communion can be defined within the parameters of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God; the Apostles' and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of faith; the two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, ministered according to the institution of Christ; and the historic episcopate, locally adapted according to different circumstances and needs. Whatever autonomy an Anglican Province may have, the decisions and actions of each province must be governed by at least these four parameters. Local autonomy may allow flexibility in matters of church order, but not in matters of faith and doctrine. More particularly we can understand the concept of a shared faith in the light of Article 6 whereby the Old and New Testament is the rule and ultimate standard of faith. As the 39 Articles make clear this submits the church to scripture, and not the other way round. Our ultimate authority therefore, is scripture as the inspired Word of God. This is the touchstone of a shared faith between different provinces, dioceses and parishes. ECUSA and New Westminster have intentionally 'crossed the line' by submitting scripture and it's interpretation to the mind of the church. In other words both have knowingly taken the decision to reject the Word of God in favour of the 'wisdom' of man. A Province that continues to choose to have scripture as it's ultimate authority is not able, as a matter of fact, to relate to a Province that has chosen to reject this ultimate authority.

We request that the Commission formally recognize this reality.

Practical Solutions Given the emerging realignment within worldwide Anglicanism, there are now some individuals, churches, dioceses and provinces that are no longer in communion with each other. A number of provisions have therefore become necessary which include the following

The protection of freehold, property and assets for clergy, parishes and dioceses which are unable, for doctrinal reasons, to accept the pastoral oversight of their Bishop and/or Archbishop and/or Primate

The provision of Alternative Episcopal Oversight for such clergy, parishes and dioceses

The provision of compensation for those who wish to remain within historic Anglicanism but who, for theological reasons, are unable to receive the Alternative Episcopal Oversight that is offered.

We request that the Commission take action to make the above provisions a reality.

Pastoral Oversight by the Archbishop of Canterbury For the pastoral oversight of the Archbishop to have credibility before the world as well as the church (Anglican and non-Anglican), a fresh commitment and assent to historic Anglicanism according to it's formularies is required along with a clear rejection of any revisionist theology that conflicts with this historic position. As well as providing a ministry of oversight, support and reconciliation, a ministry of on-going and effective discipline is also required 'to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word' (Consecration of Bishops 1662 BCP) such as those witnessed in North America. We request therefore, that the Commission urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to take action as above for the sake of regaining unity within worldwide Anglicanism.

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.