Telegraph Reports Possible Split Brewing In The CofE Unless +Rowan Does Something

Interesting:

Conservative Christians will throw down the gauntlet to the Archbishop of Canterbury this week by demanding that he openly disowns the American church over gay bishops.

A letter to be sent to Dr Rowan Williams tomorrow by Reform, an evangelical group representing 1,000 parishes, urges him to make it clear that he opposes the American position

The group warns that his failure to do so would split the Church of England from “top to bottom” and lead to a further demand that the US church is barred from the Lambeth Council, the annual gathering of bishops.

Reform also says it will bring in foreign archbishops to ordain priests in dioceses where incumbent bishops refuse to disassociate themselves from the American church, which appointed the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

The ordination of three clerics last year in the diocese of Southwark by a South African bishop ignited a battle between conservatives, who initiated the move, and liberals, who regarded it as an attack on the traditional authority of all bishops.

The Rev Rod Thomas, the chairman elect of Reform, said: “The situation in the Anglican communion is so serious now that we have to plan for an inevitable split in the Church of England from top to bottom.”

One important thing to remember is that the Church of England is a dying institution with rotten incumbencies and bishoprics. Reform, on the other hand, is a group made up of growing and giving churches. While 1,000 parishes is probably two whole Dioceses within the Church of England out of about 44, it is a significant number of the actually self supporting parishes, rather than those that are maintained by tax dollars. +Rowan will not be happy about this and will be under tremendous pressure to do something.

Tobias Haller Reflects On What the Bishop Of New York Said About Same Sex Issues In TEC

From here:

# The House of Bishops as a whole — even with the “Network” bishops missing — is not as liberal as its most liberal members. When they gather, something between the Hive Mind and the Stockholm Effect takes place. The whole is often less than the sum of its parts.
# The idea that gay and lesbian persons are full and equal members of the church is more of a hope than a reality. The ground has shifted considerably from 1979 (when General Convention resolution A053 recommended that bishops and standing committees not allow the ordination of “practicing homosexuals” to any order of ministry) to 2006 (when B033 recommended withholding consent only for the episcopate, for candidates whose manner of life might challenge the wider church) to this week in 2007 when the House of Bishops clarified that yes, this does include partnered gay and lesbian persons.
# That gay and lesbian persons continue to put up with the church may also be a sign of the Stockholm Effect, or of their great faith. I prefer to think it is the latter.
# While no one has a right to be ordained, or a right to get married (the hierarchy has veto powers on both matters) still these may have come to be seen as reasonable expectations, to some extent encouraged by a gradual movement towards greater toleration in the desuetude of 1979’s A053, and the increasing practice of pastoral provision for same sex blessings in a significant minority of dioceses.
# This impression was also encouraged by a crucial act in 2003. The consent to the election of Gene Robinson was a “false dawn” — and was not the celebration of gay and lesbian equality it was perceived to be. The consent had more to do with Gene’s superb personal qualities and track-record as an excellent priest than with his sexuality and his partnership. The consent was given in spite of, not in affirmation of, his private life. The consent to his election thus made it appear both to us and to the world that we were moving faster than we actually were.

Katharine Jefferts Shori: Presiding Bishop Or Ecclesiastical Punk?

Bob Maxwell, a frequent commenter on this blog, gave his notes from the clergy conference in the Diocese of Rio Grande to StandFirm:

Second, ++KJS is quite insistent that a clause be added to the St. Clement’s contract making it null and void if they cease to be an independent congregation of join another part of the Anglican Communion/ She, rightly in my mind, sees this as crucial for TEC. I believe she repeated that at least once and referred to that principle several times in the question and answer session. However, the agreement is signed, sealed, delivered and the money became an investment instrument the minute it was received. I don’t believe it can be legally reopened. But she is steely eyed committed to see that this clause gets in all the next agreements. “Warning Will Robinson!”

Third, two bishops threatened +Jeffrey, over this agreement with St. Clement. CO and I believe XX were the bishops. He was really upset by this –in tears and shaking- and it included deposition, law suits, not allowing him to resign. . . We were quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!

Fourth –from my response in the 2nd TV interview thread: We also are blessed with numerous solid, experienced leaders here in the Rio Grande and, while we do the necessary grief work and say our affectionate “Adios!” to +Jeffery and Debbie, be assured that the orthodox Anglicans will be organizing and communicating with one another.

***

Finally, I did not have the appropriate chance to speak to ++KJS in the open session. If the wireless had reached I was going to live blog it. God provides. Looking and listening to KJS by the clergy helped illuminate the issues that divide us in TCGC. She helped some of the moderates realize the universalist heretic that she is. Frankly, I had planned not to be there but out walking the stations. Both +Jeffery and Fr. Kelley asked us to stay. Several asked me if I wanted to spend the afternoon with her. I replied saying, “I have a two word response. ‘No’.”

I stayed and prayed for +Jeffrey. I’m exhausted, and working here at work. I was able to level in a 1×1 with ++KJS. We ended up standing in the line at the refectory together and it was long, just long enough. My former deacon told me later she wished she had her camera with her because “it was a real Kodak moment.” Like Paul, I pulled out all my social action credentials, etc, Then with her full admiration and attention, I pointed to B033 offering a promise that this Wesleyan could take hope in and found it dashed in 24 hours. Now, “local pastoral provision” is shouting to the world where we were headed, almost making it impossible for me to have any place at TEC’s table. They are tearing it further.

***

Also, the PB made the suggestion she that she stop here at our clergy conference on her way to CA. It was not +Steenson’s idea.

Bishop MacPherson’s Pastoral Letter To The Diocese of Western Louisiana Regarding The House of Bishops Meeting

A Pastoral Letter from
The Rt. Rev’d D. Bruce MacPherson
III Bishop of Western Louisiana

September 27, 2007

Please read at all services on the weekend of September 29-30, 2007. In addition to reading, this may also be reproduced and distributed. [Canon III.12.3(b) Constitution and Canons of General Convention 2006].

A response and reflections on the House of Bishops meeting
[September 19-25, 2007 New Orleans, Louisiana]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus:

A week and a half ago Susan and I set out for New Orleans and the advent of the House of Bishops meeting. This gathering has been in the thoughts and prayers of many since March of this year when the bishops of the Church made their initial response to the Communique issued by the Primates. I know, and will say at the outset, there are varying views amongst people across the Church as to the response and outcome of this important meeting, and I speak to this a little later in this letter.

We went to this meeting with the knowledge of being held in prayer by so very many across our diocese and places beyond, and we are grateful. We went knowing the weight that rested upon the work of the bishops and the ultimate statement that would be made. As we travelled, the scripture passage from Joshua 24:15 kept coming to mind, “… as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

For Joshua, it was a declaration that would set the tone for those who shared in the story of Israel’s life in its land. Pausing for a moment and looking back at the path taken by Joshua, we find that his book simplifies what was not only a long, but also complex process, by which the Israelites settled in Canaan. The history of their battles and struggles prevail over the course of twenty-two chapters, and then lead us into the concluding two chapters. It is in these concluding verses that we discover the loyalty of the Israelites to their God who has given them the land they now occupy.

A careful reading of the book in its entirety will reveal that the affirmation of God’s purpose for Israel was served even by the difficulties and evil that were encountered, but more important, for you and for me it serves as a vehicle to lead us to an understanding of obedience to God, and in whose image we are created.

As shared some time back, the passage “… as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” is simply stated, yet expresses the focus that Susan and I have shared as we have sought to live out our lives in faithfulness before, and for, the Lord.

In reading Joshua’s declaration there is no doubt as to what is intended. He has gathered all of the people together, reviewed with them the gracious acts of God toward them down through history, and then challenges them to choose whom they will worship – the God of all creation or other gods. They concur with him and in turn enter into a solemn covenant with one another and God. Down through the years, and to this day, life is always confronting us with choices and alternatives. We have a choice – God or the worldly things which surround us.

It was with this on my heart and mind that I entered the city of New Orleans. My prayer was that we would enter into a solemn covenant with God through the response that we would make as bishops of the Church.

Our time over the many days was spent sharing in Bible study with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, worship, closed executive sessions, and at times with business being conducted with the media present.

A highlight for many was on Saturday, September 22, when most of the bishops and spouses spent the day in either Mississippi or the New Orleans area, doing hurricane relief work. Due to the condition of my knee, and the fact that I was on a crutch, Susan and I signed up to go and work in the kitchen of the Cathedral making sandwiches for those who were labouring in the field. This unfortunately didn’t work out as they assigned us to go and work on a building site. The vision of me endeavouring to hang sheet rock while balanced on a crutch dissuaded us.

With this background, permit me now to speak to the larger, and more important picture, the response of the bishops of The Episcopal Church to the Primate’s Communique. In the course of the week a portion of our time was shared with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev’d Rowan D. Williams, and with some members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council. I would not be honest if I didn’t share that the week was intense, and the conversation for the most part, quite serious. I was taken a bit in our early conversations to find a number of bishops, whom have most often tended to disagree with me, expressing concern about the outcome of the meeting and our ongoing relationship within the Anglican Communion and with the See of Canterbury. These expressions were built upon by a number of them, and particularly following the presentations made by the Archbishop and some of the members of the Joint Standing Committee.

As a part of his time with us, the Archbishop shared his concern about the direction of the Church as it relates to our ecclesiology. I personally felt he was speaking with a sense of deep concern and pastoral care. The Joint Standing Committee, represented by both lay and ordained members, as did the Archbishop, spent time in conversation with us formally and informally. When each of them addressed the gathering, they demonstrated great candor while being gracious. Their messages were to the point, and they were uniform in their expressed feeling that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church. Underscoring this however, was the fact that we, The Episcopal Church, cannot be implementing change without regard to the effect it has on the wider Communion.

The message that was delivered to us was clear: the Communion wants more from us than was offered in Resolution B033 (General Convention 2006), and it needs to be unequivocally so.

As I listened to each of the speakers and the message of desired clarity, I honestly could not help but feel the resolution submitted by the Windsor bishops addressed their concerns exactly. Unfortunately though, not only our resolution, but the resolution submitted jointly by the Bishop of Louisiana in concert with the Bishops of Los Angeles and Washington, which was a modified version of the Windsor bishop’s resolution, were not able to get to the floor. It was the posture of the House to have a writing committee that had been appointed, take these documents and draw upon them in the development of the statement of response.

This committee repeatedly brought drafts to the House for consideration in executive sessions, and in each case the contents were debated. I can assure you, every effort was made to produce a document that contained the Windsor compliant language of the Windsor bishops proposed resolution. Sadly, the effort was in vain.

The final document has left frustration on both sides of the aisle, and basically states the following:

 “We reconfirm that Resolution B033 (General Convention 2006) that bishops and Standing Committees exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on the Communion.”
 “We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.”
 “We commend our Presiding Bishop’s plan for episcopal visitors.”
 “We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.”
 “We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.”
 “We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.”
 “We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.”

For those who have read the Communique and the Windsor Report, you will note this fails to respond clearly to that which has been asked of us. My disappointment with the above is that it falls short of providing the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates of the Communion with the response they sought with respect to definitive clarity.

As many are aware, the document was approved by the House of Bishops with one dissenting vote, and this coming from one of the more progressive bishops. As to my personal action, I sat mute, and in doing so, supported this work. Should I have been vocal at this stage, yes, but I failed to do so and take responsibility for my silence.

Where will we go from here? This will be determined by the response that will be made by the Archbishop, Joint Standing Committee and Primates, and the direction we take in living out the faith that has been entrusted to us, and the proclamation of the Gospel as we fulfill the mission of the Church, and this is in the “Making of Disciples: restoring all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.” I pray the response will come in time for our Diocesan Convention on October 12-13 at the Holiday Inn Convention Centre Hotel in Alexandria.

It is important to note, we have accomplished much toward this end with our reconciliation and healing work over this past year; our unwillingness to be distracted from the ministry to which God has called us and to which we have responded with great commitment. Those participating in this endeavour spoke clearly as to what the expressed desire is – faithful submission to the will of God; maintaining a focus on the Gospel and the mission of the church; respecting one another and our differences, and being a continuing part of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion in communion with the See of Canterbury. I pray that we, as the Diocese of Western Louisiana, will continue to focus on these things as we move forward together in the days ahead.

In closing, permit me to end with that which I began, “… as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” This has not changed, and my prayer is that while not having changed, I trust there has been growth in my faith and relationship with Christ. Although I failed to speak out at the time of the final vote, I remain committed to the Windsor Report and in being the Bishop of a Windsor compliant diocese. My position with respect to the requests of the Primate’s Communique has not changed and I will continue to work toward the development of the Anglican Covenant.

As your bishop, I am committed to ministering to the whole of God’s people in this diocese, and ensuring that we live with fullness into our Baptismal Covenant. To do this, I need your help and prayers and trust you know of my prayers for each of you.

“O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light rises up in darkness for the godly: Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what you would have us do, that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in your light we may see light, and in your straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” [BCP p.832]

Faithfully offered in the love of Christ,

+Bruce

The Rt. Rev’d D. Bruce MacPherson
III Bishop of Western Louisiana

Common Cause Partners To Call For Constitutional Convention In Late 2008 or Early 2009

From an email:

COMMON CAUSE PARTNERSHIP

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS: PETER FRANK – 724-777-3246

ROBERTY LUNDY – 770-595-6979

Anglican Bishops Take First Steps to New Structure

Anglican bishops from ten jurisdictions and organizations pledged to take the first steps toward a “new ecclesiastical structure” in North America. The meeting of the first ever Common Cause Council of Bishops was held in Pittsburgh September 25-28.

The bishops present lead more than 600 Anglican congregations. They formally organized themselves as a college of bishops which will meet every six months. They also laid out a timeline for the path ahead, committed to working together at local and regional levels, agreed to deploy clergy interchangeably and announced their intention to, in consultation “with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted,” call a “founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union,” at the earliest possible date agreeable to all of the partners.

“We met deeply aware that we have arrived at a critical moment in the history of mainstream Anglican witness in North America. God has led us to repentance for past divisions and opened the way for a united path forward. To him be the glory,” said Bishop Robert Duncan, convener of the council.

The full text of the bishops’ joint statement follows:

Common Cause College of Bishops Statement

In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.

We, the College of Bishops of the Common Cause Partnership, meeting together in Pittsburgh, September 25-28 in the Year of our Lord 2007, solemnly affirm this agreement.

In the grace, mercy and power of God, and in repentance for past disunity and disharmony, in thanksgiving for our full reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to give expression to our unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as Anglicans in North America, and for the sake of our mission to extend the Kingdom of God, nurture faithful disciples through Word and Sacraments, seek the lost, and partner globally with other orthodox Anglicans, we hereby commit to do the following:

1. In order to achieve greater unity and strengthen our partnership in the Gospel, we the undersigned commit ourselves to the Common Cause Partnership as set forth in the Articles of the Partnership (see Appendix 1).

2. We declare clearly that we are taking this as a first step in the formation of the “separate ecclesiastical structure” in North America called for at Kigali in September, 2006.

3. In consultation with those Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion offering recognition under the timeline adopted, we intend a founding constitutional convention for an Anglican union (see Appendix 2).

4. Those presently-participating bodies which have not yet joined the Common Cause Partnership will decide at the next meeting of their legislative bodies, either to enter the Partnership or leave full membership in Common Cause, becoming observer bodies. It is expected that all presently-participating bodies will be able to enter the Partnership.

5. We will work together on the regional and local levels and avail ourselves of the various ministries of the Common Cause Partners. We will deploy clergy interchangeably as outlined in the Articles of the Partnership. We are free to invite our fellow bishops in this College to share episcopal acts and our sacramental life.

6. The College of Bishops will meet every six months in order to accomplish our stated objectives. The leading bishop of each Partner will serve on a Lead Bishops Roundtable, which may be expanded as they may determine. The Roundtable will advise us in matters referred to it (see Appendix 3).

7. We are committed to the Great Commission. We will make disciples who make disciples and plant churches that plant churches, not resting until the millions of unreached souls in North America are brought to Christ, until all groups on the earth have indigenous churches firmly begun within them and our Lord returns in glory.

8. We ask our Chairman to inform the Primates of the Anglican Communion of these commitments in the hope that our emerging common life will commend us to them as full partners.

Appendix 1

The Articles of

The Common Cause Partnership

Article 1: Name

The Name shall be called the Common Cause Partnership (CCP).

Article 2: Basis

1. The CCP is a federation of Jurisdictions and Ministries in North America, known as Partners, which affirm the Covenant Declaration and the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners, which are attached to these articles. Each jurisdiction accepts one of the historic Books of Common Prayer as the primary standard for worship. The autonomy of the individual Jurisdictions and Ministries, and their constituent bodies, is in no way restricted or superseded by membership in the CCP.

2. The Jurisdictions and Ministries of the Common Cause Partnership at the time of its inception are the American Anglican Council (AAC); the Anglican Communion Network (ACN); the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC); the Anglican Province of America (APA); the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA); the Anglican Essentials Federation (AEF); Forward in Faith, North America (FIF/NA); and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC).

Article 3: Tasks

The CCP has five tasks:

(1) Furthering mutual understanding of its Partners with a view to eventual union when deemed appropriate;

(2) Propagating the truths of the Gospel as articulated and practiced in the historic Anglican way;

(3) Taking appropriate public and private steps in common causes in order to speak with one voice and act in concert for the welfare and witness of its Partners;

(4) Pursuing a communal, charitable and organic relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion; and

(5) Support planting congregations by Partners.

Article 4: The Leadership Council

The governing body of the CCP shall be the Leadership Council.

(1) The Leadership Council is empowered to conduct the current business of the CCP. It represents the CCP in its external relationships both nationally and internationally. It is also available to provide spiritual and practical counsel for the Partners. It decides on admission into the Common Cause Partnership.

(2) The Leadership Council consists of the chief officer of each Partner, plus one member of the clergy (in whatever order) and one lay person from each Partner. The Leadership Council shall elect annually the Moderator of the Partnership from among the chief officers of the Partners. The General Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected annually by the Leadership Council from among its clerical and lay members.

(3) The members of the Leadership Council shall be elected by the Partners they represent for a term of five years, subject to re-election. Upon the expiration of the term of office of a member of the Leadership Council whose membership is a consequent upon his holding office in a Partner, the Leadership Council is authorized to seat a replacement chosen by that Partner.

(4) The Leadership Council shall hold at least one meeting annually. The travel expenses for members shall be paid by the Partner which they represent.

(5) The General Secretary shall work in assistance to the Moderator of the CCP. He shall maintain communication between the CCP Jurisdictions and Ministries by appropriate means. He shall receive from the Partners regular reports about their status. He shall prepare the agenda for sessions of the Leadership Council and is responsible for keeping its minutes. With the Moderator, he is responsible for seeing that decisions taken are carried out, as well as for correspondence and the distribution of reports. An Assistant to the General Secretary may also be elected.

(6) The treasurer shall oversee the financial operations of the CCP, and shall submit regular financial reports on its financial standing.

(7) The Leadership Council may designate an Executive Committee to include, but not limited to, the Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer. The Leadership Council shall give the Executive Committee such authority as they deems appropriate.

Article 5: Partnership

(1) Any Jurisdiction or Ministry may apply for membership in the CCP if it supports and practices the principles stated in Articles 2(1) and 3. An application, in the form approved by the Leadership Council, shall be filed with an Admissions Committee appointed by the Moderator. The Admissions Committee shall examine the application and report to the Leadership Council for disposition. The application shall always include the following items:

a. A copy of the constitution (and canons) of the organization concerned.

b. A written report on its origin and historical developments.

c. A report on its present ministry to include:

i. The total number of congregations in North America.

(for the purposes of membership, a parish is defined as a self-supporting congregation with a full-time minister. All other congregations are defined as missions)

ii. Contact information for the listed congregations.

iii. Consecration information for all the bishops of the applying Jurisdiction or Ministry.

iv. Current ecumenical relationships with other jurisdictions.

(2) Each member agrees to pay an annual membership fee to the Partnership treasury in an amount fixed by the Leadership Council.

(3) If a member ceases to follow the principles of Article 2, membership in the CCP can be terminated by a two-thirds vote of the Leadership Council.

Article 6: Communications Office

(1) The CCP may maintain and fund a communications office which would be responsible for the

creation and dissemination of informational materials for the CCP, and other communications duties as assigned by the Leadership Council.

Article 7: Mission Work

(1) In order to foster missionary cooperation among the Partners, a Mission Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of two representatives from each Partner appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.

(2) The Mission Committee shall be available to provide coordination and assistance in forming and cultivating mission congregations begun by the CCP members, and shall make itself available to provide help in establishing corporations, administering an Anglican parish, finding supply clergy for holy days and seasons and fostering a greater sense of engagement in the mission of wider Anglicanism worldwide.

(3) The Mission Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the mission of Anglican churches, both in North America and worldwide, for admission as CCP Mission Associates.

(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Mission Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.

Article 8: Education

(1) In order to provide for the education of all its ministers, lay and ordained, an Education Committee shall hold at least one working session each year. More sessions may be held, if necessary. The Committee shall consist of no more than two representatives from each Partner member appointed by its chief officer. The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Moderator of the CCP in consultation with the Leadership Council.

(2) The Committee shall evaluate theological education standards for the Partners and make recommendations to the Leadership Council concerning guidelines for common theological examinations which may be used by the Partners of the CCP. The Committee shall also be responsible for providing and, if needed, producing materials for use in Christian education.

(3) The Education Committee may nominate to the Leadership Council bodies engaged in fostering the work of ecclesiastical education in the Anglican churches as CCP Education Associates.

(4) Travel and accommodation costs for members of the Education Committee shall be borne by the respective Partners they represent.

Article 9: Regulations

(1) Whenever possible, decisions shall be taken by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a three-quarters majority shall be sufficient for matters of general business. Elections to office shall be held by ballot, with a simple majority of votes cast being sufficient for election.

(2) A simple majority of its members shall constitute a quorum of the Leadership Council of the CCP for the transaction of business at any meeting.

(3) If a Partner makes a recommendation to change any of these articles, such motion shall be treated as general business as provided in the second sentence of Section 1.

(4) A decision to dissolve the CCP may be taken only by a four-fifths majority of the votes cast at a special Leadership Council meeting convened for that purpose.

(5) Partners are free to withdraw from the CCP by action of their own governing bodies at any time.

Article 10: Privileges

(1) As evidence of the union existing among the several Partners, a delegation of clergy and laity from each Partner may be sent to the legislative assembly of another Partner upon the latter’s invitation to take part in its deliberations.

(2) At the Consecration or Ordination of Bishops or other clergy of one Partner, the Bishops and Clergy of the other Partners may be invited to participate.

(3) The Clergy of the several Partners shall be entitled to officiate transiently in the congregations of other Partners, subject to the canonical requirements of these Partners, and shall also be eligible to hold a cure of souls in them, subject to the respective regulations of said entities.

(4) Communicant members of any Partner shall be received by a congregation of another Partner on presentation of a letter of transfer.

(5) Congregations of any Jurisdiction may transfer their membership to any other Jurisdiction on such terms as may mutually be agreed upon by the Jurisdictions.

(6) The Partners, recognizing the fact that they are working together in the same great cause on behalf of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and on the same basis, pledge each to the other their co-operation, compassion, support and prayers.

Article 11: Conciliation of Disputes

In recognition of the pledge set forth in Article 10, section 6, if a dispute arises between two or more Partners and such dispute cannot be resolved according to the biblical mandate of Matthew 18.15-17, the parties to the dispute shall submit circumstances and issues in dispute for conciliation as follows:

a. The Leadership Council shall choose three persons, at least two of whom shall be among its members, to serve as a mediation panel. The persons so appointed may not be in any way related to any party to the dispute by way of family connections, employment, or institutional affiliation.

b. The mediation panel shall assemble within three months of an appeal to afford the parties to the dispute opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions, and the panel shall deliberate as necessary to resolve the circumstances and issues thus presented. In all matters the panel shall seek first the reconciliation of the parties to the dispute; but if reconciliation is not possible it shall propose a non-binding solution to the parties within three months, which they shall be free to accept or reject.

c. No CCP Partner shall take any dispute to a Primate or Primates, nor shall any CCP Partner bring any dispute before any court of law or chancery, without first attempting in good faith to resolve the matter in accordance with the provisions of this article.

Proposed to the Partners

August 18, 2006

Revised 3-28-2007

Appendix 2

Timeline

A. College of Bishops organized: September, 2007

B. Theological Statement and Articles ratified by all Partners

C. CCP Leadership Council 1 (Article 4): week of December 3 or January 6

a. Organizing meeting

b. Leadership elected

c. Communications office created (Article 6)

d. Committees named:

i. Executive (Article 4)

ii. Admissions (Article 5)

iii. Mission (Article 7)

iv. Education (Article

e. Additional task forces created:

v. Prayer Book task force

vi. Episcopate task force

vii. Budget adopted

D. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the “separate ecclesiastical structure in North America”

E. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008

a. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces

F. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners

Appendix 3

Issues for the Lead Bishops Roundtable:

Within the stated timeline, we intend to address the following items:

How we can best exercise our episcopate in common.

A Rule of Life for bishops.

The ways and means of a mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecration.

Common worship.

Stating and maintaining a common Anglican ethos.

How we will live together with bishops and congregations and dioceses that do ordain women and others that do not ordain women, affirming that we will not violate anyone’s conscience on this matter.

The relation of clergy and congregations to bishops. Will our dioceses be rigidly fixed or flexible, allowing for affinity-based arrangements?

The shape and nature of our common episcopal oversight. Will it be conciliar as it was in the early church and as it is maintained in some parts of the Orthodox churches and as it is reflected in some aspects of the Anglican Communion? Will it follow a more hierarchical model? Or will it be modeled after the Western institutional structures, such as the federation model, with which we have been familiar in The Episcopal Church?

Exploring ways to form a leadership “pipeline” from congregational life onward that will lead candidates to offer themselves for ministry, including ordination, in an expanding, mission-minded Church.

Exploring resources for the bishops’ care for clergy and their families, including burned-out clergy and clergy families in trouble.

Exploring with the seminaries of the Church how they can best serve us and how we can support them in our new mission context.

Exploring a Common Cause electronic newsletter, with the intention of incorporating the various newsletters of the Partnership members.

Exploring the standards, spiritual and moral, of ordained and lay leaders.

Consistent with resolutions of Lambeth Conference, seeking to draw continuing churches, not members of the Common Cause Partnership, into fellowship.

God Answers Suit Denying Jurisdiction

From the ABA Journal:

Poof! ‘God’ Answers Suit, Asserts Lack of Jurisdiction

Posted Sep 21, 2007, 05:48 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A response to a legislator’s lawsuit from “God” asserts the court lacks jurisdiction to hear a Nebraska legislator’s lawsuit against him.

John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha, told the Associated Press the response was one of two filed on God’s behalf. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God earlier this week to make the point that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit.

“This one miraculously appeared on the counter,” Friend said. “It just all of a sudden was here—poof!”

The suit also argues that God is immune from earthly laws, he has not been served with the suit, and he should not be blamed for human suffering.

“I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,” it read.

No contact information was on the filing, although it lists St. Michael the Archangel as a witness. Several local lawyers denied that they wrote the response, but they told Omaha’s Action 3 News they are available if God needs them.

“[God] hasn’t called me yet!” said lawyer James Martin Davis.

A second response from “God” lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office.

Info On Bishop Bruno’s Activities

From an email:

Our parish (St. Wilfrid of York Episcopal Church in Huntington Beach, CA) is currently conducting a search for a new rector, and Bishop Bruno is our acting rector in the interim. A same-sex blessing was conducted at the church on August 26. While Bishop Bruno neither conducted nor attended the service, he could not have been unaware of the service as the church’s acting rector.

Bishop Jenkins Canon, Mark Stevenson, Lauds The House of Bishops Statement

From here:

When all was said and done, I believe the bishops delivered an answer to the Global Communion that, while not perfect, is clear and proper and right. When all was said and done, some said it was not enough. When all was said and done, some said it went too far. But when all was said and done, I believe that what was done was accomplished by those who had put down hammer and nails and picked up the cross.

District Attorney Reed Walters: Justice In Jena

Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe a weapon was involved other than the shoes of the people kicking the victim. However, a jury can find that kind of thing to be a dangerous weapon in criminal law. In any event, I found Mr. Walters’ perspective to be important in all this, so I thought I would post his op-ed here:

September 26, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Justice in Jena
By REED WALTERS

Jena, La.

THE case of the so-called Jena Six has fired the imaginations of thousands, notably young African-Americans who, according to many of their comments, believe they will be in the vanguard of a new civil rights movement. Whether America needs a new civil rights movement I leave to social activists, politicians and the people who must give life to such a cause.

I am a small-town lawyer and prosecutor. For 16 years, it has been my job as the district attorney to review each criminal case brought to me by the police department or the sheriff, match the facts to any applicable laws and seek justice for those who have been harmed. The work is often rewarding, but not always.

I do not question the sincerity or motivation of the 10,000 or more protesters who descended on Jena last week, after riding hundreds of miles on buses. But long before reaching our town of 3,000 people, they had decided that a miscarriage of justice was taking place here. Their anger at me was summed up by a woman who said, “If you can figure out how to make a schoolyard fight into an attempted murder charge, I’m sure you can figure out how to make stringing nooses into a hate crime.”

That could be a compelling statement to someone trying to motivate listeners on a radio show, but as I am a lawyer obligated to enforce the laws of my state, it does not work for me.

I cannot overemphasize how abhorrent and stupid I find the placing of the nooses on the schoolyard tree in late August 2006. If those who committed that act considered it a prank, their sense of humor is seriously distorted. It was mean-spirited and deserves the condemnation of all decent people.

But it broke no law. I searched the Louisiana criminal code for a crime that I could prosecute. There is none.

Similarly, the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, who is African-American, found no federal law against what was done.

A district attorney cannot take people to trial for acts not covered in the statutes. Imagine the trampling of individual rights that would occur if prosecutors were allowed to pursue every person whose behavior they disapproved of.

The “hate crime” the protesters wish me to prosecute does not exist as a stand-alone offense in Louisiana law. It’s not that our Legislature has turned a blind eye to crimes motivated by race or other personal characteristics, but it has addressed the problem in a way that does not cover what happened in Jena. The hate crime statute is used to enhance the sentences of defendants found guilty of specific crimes, like murder or rape, who chose their victims based on race, religion, sexual orientation or other factors.

Last week, a reporter asked me whether, if I had it to do over, I would do anything differently. I didn’t think of it at the time, but the answer is yes. I would have done a better job of explaining that the offenses of Dec. 4, 2006, did not stem from a “schoolyard fight” as it has been commonly described in the news media and by critics.

Conjure the image of schoolboys fighting: they exchange words, clench fists, throw punches, wrestle in the dirt until classmates or teachers pull them apart. Of course that would not be aggravated second-degree battery, which is what the attackers are now charged with. (Five of the defendants were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder.) But that’s not what happened at Jena High School.

The victim in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. According to all the credible evidence I am aware of, after lunch, he walked to his next class. As he passed through the gymnasium door to the outside, he was blindsided and knocked unconscious by a vicious blow to the head thrown by Mychal Bell. While lying on the ground unaware of what was happening to him, he was brutally kicked by at least six people.

Imagine you were walking down a city street, and someone leapt from behind a tree and hit you so hard that you fell to the sidewalk unconscious. Would you later describe that as a fight?

Only the intervention of an uninvolved student protected Mr. Barker from severe injury or death. There was serious bodily harm inflicted with a dangerous weapon — the definition of aggravated second-degree battery. Mr. Bell’s conviction on that charge as an adult has been overturned, but I considered adult status appropriate because of his role as the instigator of the attack, the seriousness of the charge and his prior criminal record.

I can understand the emotions generated by the juxtaposition of the noose incident with the attack on Mr. Barker and the outcomes for the perpetrators of each. In the final analysis, though, I am bound to enforce the laws of Louisiana as they exist today, not as they might in someone’s vision of a perfect world.

That is what I have done. And that is what I must continue to do.

Reed Walters is the district attorney of LaSalle Parish.

A Final Word In Defense of My Bishop, D. Bruce MacPherson

I’ve received blog comments, emails and not a few phone calls of dismay at the idea that +Bruce did not object or voice vote “no” to the resolution addressing the Primates Communique in New Orleans. Accusations have been that he has sold us out, betrayed the faith once delivered, and didn’t voice the opinions of those in the Diocese of Western Louisiana.

Let the record be clear on two points. He proposed a resolution that would have appropriately answered the Primates Communique. He didn’t negotiate on that resolution as Bishop Jenkins is rumored to have done on his. No other Windsor Bishop or Network Bishop did this. He wanted an up or down vote on the Communique, and did everything possible to make that happen. The House of Bishops effectively rejected his resolution.

I also want to remind people of what Bishop MacPherson said while in Tanzania to the Primates. He made his stand, when it counted, and he spoke for many of us in the Episcopal Church and certainly this Diocese. His remarks were more to the point and harsher than Bishop Duncan’s, and Bishop MacPherson is the President of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice. Oh, and the Presiding Bishop was right there when said what he said about her.

So, folks, before you complain or make disparaging remarks about my bishop, you need to keep in mind the above facts as well as the fact that he is still recovering from complications due to his knee surgery which was made worse by attendance at this HOB meeting at the meeting in New Orleans right before that of the Louisiana Interchurch Council.

To all you Monday morning quarterbacks out there, I would also say to you that I’ve been where +Bruce has been when I was at General Convention last year. I’ve been to the den of where the revisionists run things and tried to make a stand for the Gospel and the Church. You frankly do the best you can do. It ain’t always pretty, it ain’t always perfect. But it is brave. +Bruce has consistently done this in every single council of the church, for the last four years. Yes, he wants to stay in the Episcopal Church and he wants the church to remain in the Anglican Communion and to be faithful to the Gospel. He doesn’t want a schism, and he is going to be dead sure he is on the side of the church catholic in any schism in Anglicanism. But, no one at this point really knows where that is. Everyone has opinions, but no one really knows for sure.

This is going to sound perhaps a little crass. Instead of attacking +Bruce for his actions at the 11th hour of the House of Bishops meeting for not standing up and screaming “NO!” as this resolution passed on a voice vote which means it would have passed no matter what +Bruce did, I just wish you would thank him for his leadership during the past four years.

Otherwise, shut up and go do something about this situation in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion yourselves. You take up the fight. Be prepared to count the cost – personally, physically and spiritually. Read over my blog for the last three years since I started it. What are you prepared to do?

Yes, I do need a nap, a glass of milk and a cookie. I’ve had a long day today, among this, court this morning, and five clients in crisis this afternoon.

UPDATE: Just as a reminder:

+Bruce is public enemy number one above Bishop Duncan in Jim Naughton’s eyes, and this is what he said in Tanzania.