Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC
________________________________
San Joaquin: Response to
the Interim Pastoral Presence
Source:
Diocese of San Joaquin
Date: February 20, 2008
The following are identical letters to Canon Cox and Canon Moore.
It is my understanding that you have been
hired by the Presiding Bishop's Office to be a part of an interim pastoral
presence with oversight in the Diocese of San Joaquin. This fact indicates
one of the two things: 1) You do not believe that the Diocese was capable
of removing itself from TEC in December 2007, and therefore you are
intruding into the internal affairs of a recognized TEC diocese; or, 2) You
do believe this diocese left TEC in 2007 and you are entering into the
internal affairs of a diocese of another province.
In either case, at present, The Episcopal Church has begun attacking both me
and this diocese. Your coming here is unconscionable in that you are
meddling in the affairs of San Joaquin with neither the courtesy of
requesting my permission as bishop nor even troubling to inform me of your
plans. Such actions are hardly those of men with honorable intentions.
Even though you have already taken it upon yourself to be in contact with
clergy and parishes, under no circumstances are you welcome to hold meetings
in this diocese or to ask permission of clergy or other leaders to do so.
If indeed your proposal is to seek reconciliation with the goal to reduce
the "threat of law suits" you are approaching the wrong persons. Why do you
not come directly to me with your concerns and offers,for such lawsuits -
presumably - would be lodged against me?
Should you choose to deal directly with me concerning the above mentioned
proposals I would be willing to set aside time to meet with you in my office
in Fresno. Apart from this, I ask you to desist from entering this diocese.
I remain, In earnest,
+John-David Schofield
Cc: The Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts-Schori
The Most Reverend Gregory Venables
___________________________________
Seabury-Western Suspends Recruitment,
Admissions
Source:
The Living Church
Date: February 21,2008
The Very Rev. Gary R. Hall,dean and president
of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, has announced that the school will
"suspend recruitment and admissions to all degree and certificate programs"
while it considers its future.
"We believe that the church does not need Seabury in its present form," Dean
Hall wrote. "There are a number of other schools who do what we have
traditionally done as well as we do. But we also believe that the church
very much needs a seminary animated by and organized around a new vision of
theological educationone that is centered in a vision of baptism and its
implications for the whole church, one that is flexible and adaptive and
collaborative in nature."
The decision to suspend recruitment and admissions was made following a
meeting earlier this week of the board of trustees. The board approved a
resolution calling on Dean Hall to develop "a detailed plan for the future
operation of Seabury, including a financial plan that brings expenses in
line with revenues" by its next meeting.
The seminary has been running deficit budgets for the better part of 20
years, according to Elizabeth Butler,vice president for advancement and
administration. Classes during the current term, which ends in May, will not
be affected, but no classes have been scheduled for the term to begin in
September. Layoffs of faculty and staff have not been ruled out as part of
the reorganization, Ms. Butler said...
Read the rest of the article by
clicking here.
________________________________
More Anglican congregations decide
their future
Souce: Anglican Network in Canada NEWS
RELEASE
Date: February 17,2008
Seven Anglican congregations voted this
weekend to accept the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, Moderator
of the Anglican Network in Canada, under the Primatial authority of
Archbishop Gregory Venables and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Most churches accepted this option with decisive majorities.
What this means is that these congregations
are requesting spiritual care from and will come under the authority of
Bishop Harvey and Archbishop Venables, rather than their former Anglican
Church in Canada diocese and bishop who are walking away from established
Christian teaching and globally recognized Anglican doctrine.
Today, six churches voted to accept Bishop
Harvey's spiritual care...
Read the rest of the news release along with a
list of churches that have realigned with the Anglican Network in Canada by
clicking here.
____________________________________
GAFCON conference 'rearranged'
Source:
Religious Intelligence
Date: February 19,2008
By: George Conger
The Gafcon organizing committee, which is
arranging an alternative to the Anglican Lambeth Conference, has announced
that the dates and venue of the Jerusalem conference have been changed.
Following consultations with the Bishop in
Jerusalem, the Rt Rev Suheil Dawani, the conference will now be broken into
two parts: a consultation for church leaders in Jordan from June 18-22 and a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem from June 22-29.
"We are very grateful for the feedback that we
have received on the many complex issues that confront us," the Archbishop
of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen (pictured) said on Feb 19.
"The emphasis of our time together will be our
future in the Anglican Communion and the reformation and renewal of our
common life rooted in the Holy Scriptures and our common faith in Jesus
Christ," he said.
On Saturday, the Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt
Rev Suheil Dawani urged Dr Jensen to reconsider holding Gafcon in Jerusalem.
During his tour of Australia, Bishop Dawani told the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation holding Gafcon in Jerusalem was politically unwise.
"We are dealing with many different issues and
we have other priorities there," he said, on "the communicable level, the
inter-faith level, as well as on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."
Read the rest of the article by
clicking here.
___________________________________
Russians Slam Archbishop
Source: Church of England Newspaper
Date: February 22, 2008
The Russian Orthodox Church has slammed the
Archbishop of Canterbury for his remarks over Sharia law, saying the head of
a Christian Church should not be promoting the tenets of non-Christian
religions.
While church leaders in Britain have rallied
to his defense, Orthodox, Lutheran and Roman Catholic leaders abroad have
been less charitable in their remarks. The Feb 7 interview with the BBC and
his subsequent speech at the Temple Church on certain aspects of Sharia law,
have elicited sharp comments from overseas Anglican and Christian leaders,
while Dr. Williams' subsequent explanation, that his remarks were
misunderstood,appears not to have appeased his critics.
Speaking to the opening session of the World
Council of Churches' Standing Committee meeting in Geneva on Feb 14, the
Russian Orthodox's representative to ecumenical organizations, Bishop
Hilarion of Vienna and Austria said "many Christians around the world are
looking up to Christian leaders with hope that they will defend Christianity
against all the challenges it faces."
"Our role is not to protect Sharia law, to
glorify an alternative style of behavior or to preach secular values. Our
sacred mission is to announce what Christ announced, to teach what his
disciples taught," he said.
"Politically correct Christianity will die,"
said Bishop Hilarion." We have already been watching the process of liberal
Christianity's gradual decline as newly introduced moral norms lead to
splits, discrepancies and confusion in several Christian communities," he
said.
The head of the Evangelical Church in Germany
(EKD) told German radio on Feb 16 there must be a single law for all
citizens, regardless of race or religion.
Dr. Wolfgang Huber, Bishop of the Evangelical
Church of Berlin-Brandenburg-Silesian Upper Lusatia and Chairman of the
Council of the EKD said the premise behind Dr. Williams' remarks was flawed.
"Hoping to achieve integration through a dual
legal system is a mistaken idea," Dr. Huber told Deutsche Welle. "You have
to ask the question as to what extent cultural characteristics have a
legitimate place in a legal system. But you have to push for one country to
have one system."
Read the rest of the article by clicking
here.
___________________________________
Sydney Archbishop Addresses Standing
Committee on Lambeth
Source:
Anglican
Church League
Date: February 18, 2008
By Archbishop Peter F Jensen
I understand the view that we should attend
and do our best to engage with the debates at Lambeth. Indeed, I have
deliberately taken an extended period of time to allow for thought and
prayer, and for discussion with my assistant bishops and others. But in the
light of what has happened and of the nature of the Lambeth conference we
have come to the firm view that for us the best and right action is not to
attend,as a matter of conscience and of pastoral care to those who have
needed to dissociate themselves from bishops and churches. It is important
to understand the following points.
First, we remain thoroughly committed to the Anglican Communion,its good
health and its future. But we do not believe that its good health will be
advanced or secured by a conference which seems to give credibility and
influence to those who have introduced false teaching and continue to
commend it as often as they can. After much patient talk and delay,we have
arrived at a time when the divisive consequences of this position must be
made clear, not obscured by a large and unified conference. Only on that
basis can a healthy and united future occur.
Second, our non-attendance at Lambeth does not remove us from the Anglican
Communion, or damage our continued participation and standing. The
conference is based strongly on the idea of Christian fellowship. But we
cannot have deep fellowship with the ones responsible for this innovation.
To do so would betray conscience and our fellowship with those who have
resisted at great cost to themselves.
Third, the Anglican Communion has been irreversibly changed by these
developments and this Lambeth Conference is not able to turn the clock
back. The best way of exerting influence is by not attending, thus
signalling that the conference cannot act as an instrument of unity at this
time, nor can it speak with the authority which it had in 1998, an authority
which was set aside by this novel teaching. We will not accept the view that
the debate concerns a relatively unimportant matter upon which we can seek
and give accommodation. In these circumstances, absence is a decisive,
though painful way of casting a vote, a way which is sometimes necessary
when the issues are of great significance as in the present case.
Fourth, we need to have pastoral care for those who have been hurt. As you
know, the Global South Anglicans have been in the forefront of the struggle
of this issue since the beginning. Their leaders have expended vast amounts
of time and effort in seeking repentance from those who have erred and in
caring for those who have been disaffiliated. Now a number of the foremost
leaders from Africa and South America, standing on conscience, have declared
that they cannot attend Lambeth. I am including an eloquent letter from five
such leaders addressed to certain English bishops. Given the fellowship
which we enjoy with these leaders and their people it is inconceivable that
we should not join them in standing aside. We must support those who have
been so courageous.
Fifth, we have a duty of pastoral care to the Anglican Christians in North
America and elsewhere who have made their protest against the local
innovations. How can they feel confidence in us if we simply attend this
conference and have what the world would see as fellowship in the delightful
surroundings of Canterbury - studying the Bible, receiving Communion,
meeting new people, enjoying gracious hospitality, attending a garden party
at Buckingham Palace, while they endure prosecution, dispossession and doubt
over their standing as Anglicans? Faced with the terrible choice between
unity and truth, they have chosen to live by the truth. Should we not be
witnesses that their choice is right?
Read the rest of the article by clicking
here.
