"Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun."
(Psalm 37:5-6)

• AAC Notes: Events & Encompass
• Episcopal Church Bishops Propose Primatial Vicar for Petitioning Dioceses
• Responses to The Episcopal Church's Proposal
• Orthodox Bishops Decline Invitation to Second Summit
• Bishop Schofield Responds to Presiding Bishop

AAC NOTES

• On the Calendar:
  
  1. A conference in Upstate New York, entitled “Crisis in the Episcopal Church: What the Spirit Says to the Churches," will be held December 9 in Rochester. The conference is sponsored by All Saints Anglican Church (Province of Uganda). More info here.
  
  2. Mere Anglicanism is holding its second conference January 25-27, 2007 in Charleston, SC. More info/sign-up is at www.mereanglicanism.com.
  
   
• Encompass:
  There will be no December issue of Encompass. The next issue will be longer than usual and will arrive in your mailboxes shortly after the New Year.

BISHOPS PROPOSE PRIMATIAL VICAR FOR PETITIONING DIOCESES
 

Source: The Living Church
November 30, 2006

A group of bishops, including Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has developed a proposal responding to requests articulated in "An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury" regarding an alternate primatial relationship for petitioning dioceses. The proposal has been submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the bishops of the petitioning dioceses.

The response, drafted at a Nov. 27 meeting in New York, provides for the appointment by the Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, of a primatial vicar as the Presiding Bishop's designated pastor to bishops and dioceses that have requested such oversight. The primatial vicar, in episcopal orders, could preside at consecrations of bishops in those dioceses.

Accountable to Bishop Jefferts Schori, the primatial vicar would report to an advisory panel that would include the designees of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop, the president of the House of Deputies, and a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the dioceses petitioning for pastoral care by the primatial vicar.

The response makes clear that the arrangement does not affect the administrative or other canonical duties of the Presiding Bishop except to the degree that the Presiding Bishop may wish to delegate some of those duties to the primatial vicar. The response also specifies that the primatial vicar and the advisory panel shall function in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

The arrangement would be provisional, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, and continuing for three years. The bishops asked the Presiding Bishop to monitor its efficacy, and to consult with the House of Bishops and the Executive Council regarding the arrangement and possible future developments.

Episcopal News Service contributed to this report.

*Read the full proposal statement and ENS story here.
*Associated Press coverage here

RESPONSES TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S PROPOSAL

The Rev. Canon David Anderson, AAC President: "The proposal does not take into account the heart of the issue and problem which is that Katharine Jefferts Schori has adopted a form of faith, theology and Christology that is so seriously out of step with historic Anglicanism and Christianity that it calls into question her capacity to give appropriate leadership on this matter. It keeps all the power in her hands. The proposal is to be in consultation with, not the consent of, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus she makes all the decisions. It is a non-starter."

Archbishop of Canterbury: "The meeting in New York to consider the questions raised by requests for 'alternative primatial oversight' has produced some imaginative proposals which represent, potentially, a very significant development. I am glad to see these positive suggestions and shall be giving them careful consideration. I hope that they will mark a step forward in the long and difficult process of working out future relationships within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in a manner faithful to the gospel requirements of forebearance and generosity." (Full press release )

Bishop Iker (Diocese of Fort Worth): "While I am grateful for the efforts of those who crafted the proposal, I find it unacceptable and unworkable in its present form. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that we have not requested someone to serve as 'the Presiding Bishop’s designated pastor' to us; we have appealed for an alternative primate. Nor has this appeal been made to the Presiding Bishop, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion. We expect a suitable response from them at the Primates’ Meeting in February. This new proposal is deficient in that it seeks to reinforce the PB’s authority over us rather than provide an acceptable alternative. We cannot accept a Primatial Vicar appointed by her and accountable to her, who 'could' function for her only when so delegated by her. In addition, the provisional nature of the proposal does not meet our needs for a long-term solution to our irreconcilable differences." (Full release )

Diocese of Pittsburgh & Bishop Duncan: " 'We are heartened that the national leadership of The Episcopal Church has realized the time has come for structural change. We will study this proposal,' said Bishop Robert Duncan, bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network. 'However, at first glance what is proposed is neither primatial, nor oversight, nor is it an alternative to the spiritual authority of one who, by both teaching and action, has expressly rejected the Windsor Report and its recommendations. This is obviously not what was asked for.' Bishop Duncan also observed that what is proposed is in fact less than what was offered and rejected at the first meeting held in New York during September. Bishop Duncan reiterated his commitment to find a mediated solution to the crisis in The Episcopal Church. 'We really do want to talk about all the issues. We want to protect everyone who is unable to travel down the path the majority of The Episcopal Church has clearly chosen, not just those in dioceses that have requested APO. We want to have this conversation and find a way forward that allows all of us to get on with our mission. We are committed to remaining in the mainstream of the Anglican Communion as we proclaim the faith once delivered to the saints,' he said." (Full press release)

BISHOPS DECLINE INVITATION TO SECOND SUMMIT

Press Release - Dioceses of Fort Worth and Pittsburgh
November 27, 2006

FORT WORTH, Texas – The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, and the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, have declined an invitation from the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia, to attend a second Summit Meeting of bishops requesting Alternate Primatial Oversight with the Presiding Bishop and two co-conveners, Bishop Lee and the Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida. In fact, none of the bishops of those dioceses that have requested APO will be attending. The proposed meeting was scheduled to begin today.

The first Summit, convened at the request of the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, was held in September at the offices of the Church Pension Group in New York City.

Bishop Iker enumerated the reasons for the decision in a reply he sent to Bishop Lee on Tuesday, Nov. 21, on behalf of Bishop Duncan and himself. The full text of the reply is as follows:

Dear Peter,

I am responding to your e-mail from yesterday on behalf of Bob Duncan and myself regarding the proposed meeting for November 27th. He and I have agreed that the following points must be made at this time:

1. Our position has been the same since the last day of our New York meeting back in September. We will not attend another meeting “to continue the conversation” unless there is a specific proposal on the table to provide APO. Apparently this is not the case for next Monday. You speak of a skeleton, but nothing has been shared with either of us. We assume the other side has seen your proposal.

2. We made a specific proposal to the Archbishop of Canterbury back in July, and we shared this document with you and John Lipscomb as the conveners of the September meeting. You did not share it with all of the other participants at that time, and it was never discussed.

3. We note that David Booth Beers has been quoted in the press as telling the meeting of The Episcopal Majority several days ago that Alternative Primatial Oversight is not going to be provided. The Presiding Bishop’s office has not denied his claim, and we have concluded that she agrees with David’s assertion.

4. We agree that mediation is required at this time to move toward a negotiated settlement. The time frame you propose for the 27th is insufficient for significant progress to be made in this regard, and we would need additional parties in attendance in order to participate in such negotiations.

5. We believe the situation has deteriorated significantly in recent weeks with threats of lawsuits against bishops appealing for APO and of declaring “vacant sees.” We note that we are now tagged as “problem dioceses” and that we will continue to be monitored by the property task force headed by Bishop Sauls. We also note that this task force is going to cultivate relationships with persons in our dioceses who oppose the position taken by our diocesan conventions. Such posturing is meant to intimidate us and does not promote dialogue and conversation about the matters before us. I have been advised that legal counsel should accompany me to any future meetings with representatives from 815 or the General Convention.

Should you elect to proceed with your meeting on Monday, please know that you will be in our prayers and that Bob and I wish you good success.

Sincerely,

+Jack L. Iker

–30–

Contact: Suzanne Gill
Director of Communications
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
sgill@fwepiscopal.org 

Peter Frank
Director of Communications
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
frank@pgh.anglican.org

BISHOP SCHOFIELD RESPONDS TO BISHOP SCHORI'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20TH

Source: Diocese of San Joaquin

November 28, 2006

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts-Schori
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Ave.
New York, NY 10017

Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ.

I am in receipt of your letter to me and wish to make clear from the outset that I have always remained faithful to my vows as an ordained bishop in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. At my consecration, I vowed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God.” I was charged by my chief consecrator to “Feed the flock of Christ committed to [my] charge, guard and defend them in his truth, and be a faithful steward of his holy Word and Sacraments.” I carry out my vow by defending and propagating “the historic Faith and Order” which The Episcopal Church commits to upholding in the preamble of its own Constitution.

In 2003, the General Convention committed itself to a theological path that is irreconcilable with the Anglican faith this Church has received and has torn the fabric of the entire Communion. The Primates repeated calls for repentance have not been heeded. More than half of the Primates and Provinces of the Anglican Communion have declared themselves to be in impaired or broken communion with The Episcopal Church. Beyond our Anglican Communion, relations throughout Christendom have been profoundly strained. With obvious reference to innovations and novelties introduced by The Episcopal Church, last week Pope Benedict XVI publically stated to Archbishop Rowan Williams that recent developments, “especially concerning ordained ministry and certain moral teachings,” have affected not only the internal relations within the Anglican Communion but also relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.

The Episcopal Church, as an institution, is walking a path of apostasy and those faithful to God’s Word are forced to make painful choices.

At a diocesan level, the choice is between continuing membership in an unrepentant, apostate institution or following Holy Scripture and the Anglican faith. Whether or not the Diocese of San Joaquin will continue its institutional membership in The Episcopal Church is a choice that will be made by the people and the clergy and not by me. They will express their collective will as provided in the diocesan governing documents which were approved by the General Convention when the diocese was first admitted to membership.

It is important to point out that the vote at the Diocesan Convention in December 2006 is neither final nor irrevocable. Should the Constitutional amendments being proposed pass the “first reading,” then the diocese will simply have positioned itself to make a final decision at a second consecutive Annual Convention in 2007 if that proves God’s call.

Under our diocesan constitution, the second and final reading is automatically scheduled for October 2007. The setting of the exact date may be advanced or delayed by the bishop. There are some significant factors that would influence such a decision.

First, at the meeting with the leading Primates of the Global South in Virginia, November 15-17 this year, the Global South Primates Steering Committee encouraged us by supporting our faithful stand and commitment to Christ, and they expressed a desire to be of help to us to relieve our untenable position. They have promised assistance, the form of which they will bring to the entire Primates meeting scheduled for Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in February 2007. In the meantime, in keeping with the goals of the Windsor Report and positioning ourselves to accept the Primates’ help, we are responding to the Primates who called upon us to remain flexible until the details are worked out.

An additional consideration was your letter to me. I believe you have shown wisdom and restraint by not issuing an ultimatum. Instead, you have invited further discussion which could possibly lead to some degree of reconciliation. In recognition of what you have proposed, I, too, will exercise restraint by not advancing the date of what could be an historic and final act. However, should proceedings be instituted against me as threatened in your letter, I would not feel obliged to exercise restraint. My prayer is that neither of us takes action which upsets the delicate balance which now exists until the Primates have given us direction at their February 2007 meeting. Until then, powerful forces will be at work that will ultimately shape the future.

I pray that God’s will be revealed to us all.

You may be assured of my prayers for the Holy Spirit’s wisdom and guidance.

In Christ,

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC
Bishop of San Joaquin

JDS/jw

---

Note: Jefferts Schori's letter may be read here.