{"id":30,"date":"2007-02-19T14:51:11","date_gmt":"2007-02-19T22:51:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.opinion.katrinasdream.org\/?p=30"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:02:32","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T19:02:32","slug":"primates-feb-19","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/primates-feb-19\/","title":{"rendered":"Primates Feb 19"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Communique<\/strong><\/div>\n
Of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam<\/strong><\/div>\n
19th February 2007<\/em><\/div>\n

1. We, the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, gathered for
\nmutual consultation and prayer at Dar es Salaam between 15th and 19th
\nFebruary 2007 at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and as
\nguests of the Primate of Tanzania, Archbishop Donald Leo Mtetemela. The
\nmeeting convened in an atmosphere of mutual graciousness as the Primates
\nsought together to seek the will of God for the future life of the
\nCommunion. We are grateful for the warm hospitality and generosity of
\nArchbishop Donald and his Church members, many of whom have worked hard to
\nensure that our visit has been pleasant and comfortable, including our
\ntravel to Zanzibar on the Sunday.<\/p>\n

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed to our number fourteen new
\nprimates, and on the Wednesday before our meeting started, he led the new
\nprimates in an afternoon of discussion about their role. We give thanks for
\nthe ministry of those primates who have completed their term of office.<\/p>\n

3. Over these days, we have also spent time in prayer and Bible Study, and
\nreflected upon the wide range of mission and service undertaken across the
\nCommunion. While the tensions that we face as a Communion commanded our
\nattention, the extensive discipleship of Anglicans across the world reminds
\nus of our first task to respond to God’s call in Christ. We are grateful for
\nthe sustaining prayer which has been offered across the Communion as we
\nmeet.<\/p>\n

4. On Sunday 18th February, we travelled to the island of Zanzibar, where we
\njoined a celebration of the Holy Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral, built
\non the site of the old slave market. The Archbishop of Canterbury preached,
\nand commemorated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade
\nin the United Kingdom, which had begun a process that led to the abolition
\nof the slave market in Zanzibar ninety years later. At that service, the
\nArchbishop of Canterbury admitted Mrs Hellen Wangusa as the new Anglican
\nObserver at the United Nations. We warmly welcome Hellen to her post.<\/p>\n

5. We welcomed the presence of the President of Zanzibar at lunch on Sunday,
\nand the opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet with the
\nPresident of Tanzania in the course of the meeting.<\/p>\n

The Millennium Development Goals<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. We were delighted to hear from Mrs Wangusa about her vision for her post
\nof Anglican Observer at the United Nations. She also spoke to us about the
\nWorld Millennium Development Goals, while Archbishop Ndungane also spoke to
\nus as Chair of the Task Team on Poverty and Trade, and the forthcoming
\nconference on Towards Effective Anglican Mission in South Africa next month.
\nWe were inspired and challenged by these presentations.
\nTheological Education in the Anglican Communion<\/p>\n

7. We also heard a report from Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables and Mrs
\nClare Amos on the work of the Primates’ Working Party on Theological
\nEducation in the Anglican Communion. The group has focussed on developing
\n“grids” which set out the appropriate educational and developmental targets
\nwhich can be applied in the education of those in ministry in the life of
\nthe Church. We warmly commend the work which the group is doing, especially
\non the work which reminds us that the role of the bishop is to enable the
\ntheological education of the clergy and laity of the diocese. We also
\nwelcome the scheme that the group has developed for the distribution of
\nbasic theological texts to our theological colleges across the world, the
\npreparations for the Anglican Way Consultation in Singapore in May this
\nyear, and the appointment of three Regional Associates to work with the
\ngroup. The primates affirmed the work of the Group, and urged study and
\nreception of its work in the life of the Communion.<\/p>\n

The Hermeneutics Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

8. We agreed to proceed with a worldwide study of hermeneutics (the methods
\nof interpreting scripture). The primates have joined the Joint Standing
\nCommittee in asking the Anglican Communion Office to develop options for
\ncarrying the study forward following the Lambeth Conference in 2008. A
\nreport will be presented to the Joint Standing Committee next year.<\/p>\n

Following through the Windsor Report<\/strong><\/p>\n

9. Since the controversial events of 2003, we have faced the reality of
\nincreased tension in the life of the Anglican Communion – tension so deep
\nthat the fabric of our common life together has been torn. The Windsor
\nReport of 2004 described the Communion as suffering from an “illness”. This
\n“illness” arises from a breakdown in the trust and mutual recognition of one
\nanother as faithful disciples of Christ, which should be among the first
\nfruits of our Communion in Christ with one another.<\/p>\n

10. The Windsor Report identified two threats to our common life: first,
\ncertain developments in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church and
\nthe Anglican Church of Canada which challenged the standard of teaching on
\nhuman sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; and second,
\ninterventions in the life of those Provinces which arose as reactions to the
\nurgent pastoral needs that certain primates perceived. The Windsor Report
\ndid not see a “moral equivalence” between these events, since the
\ncross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of
\nAnglicans in the face of innovation. Nevertheless both innovation and
\nintervention are central factors placing strains on our common life. The
\nWindsor Report recognised this (TWR Section D) and invited the Instruments
\nof Communion [1] to call for a moratorium of such actions [2] .<\/p>\n

11. What has been quite clear throughout this period is that the 1998
\nLambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in
\nthe Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates
\nthe traditional teaching of the Christian Church that “in view of the
\nteaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage
\nbetween a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is
\nright for those who are not called to marriage”, and applies this to several
\nareas which are discussed further below. The Primates have reaffirmed this
\nteaching in all their recent meetings [3], and indicated how a change in the
\nformal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the
\nstandard upheld by the Communion as a whole.<\/p>\n

12. At our last meeting in Dromantine, the primates called for certain
\nactions to address the situation in our common life, and to address those
\nchallenges to the teaching of the Lambeth Resolution which had been raised
\nby recent developments. Now in Dar es Salaam, we have had to give attention
\nto the progress that has been made.<\/p>\n

The Listening Process<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, committed the Provinces “to listen to
\nthe experience of homosexual persons” and called “all our people to minister
\npastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to
\ncondemn irrational fear of homosexuals”. The initiation of this process of
\nlistening was requested formally by the Primates at Dromantine and
\ncommissioned by ACC-13. We received a report from Canon Philip Groves, the
\nFacilitator of the Listening Process, on the progress of his work. We wish
\nto affirm this work in collating various research studies, statements and
\nother material from the Provinces. We look forward to this material being
\nmade more fully available across the Communion for study and reflection, and
\nto the preparation of material to assist the bishops at 2008 Lambeth
\nConference.<\/p>\n

The Panel of Reference<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. We are grateful to the retired Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter
\nCarnley for being with us to update us on the work of the Archbishop of
\nCanterbury’s Panel of Reference. This was established by the Archbishop in
\nresponse to the request of the Primates at Dromantine “to supervise the
\nadequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches” for “groups in serious
\ntheological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with
\ntheir Provinces” [4] . Archbishop Peter informed us of the careful work
\nwhich this Panel undertakes on our behalf, although he pointed to the
\ndifficulty of the work with which it has been charged arising from the
\nconflicted and polarised situations which the Panel must address on the
\nbasis of the slender resources which can be given to the work. We were
\ngrateful for his report, and for the work so far undertaken by the Panel.<\/p>\n

The Anglican Covenant<\/strong><\/p>\n

15. Archbishop Drexel Gomez reported to us on the work of the Covenant
\nDesign Group. The Group met in Nassau last month, and has made substantial
\nprogress. We commend the Report of the Covenant Design Group for study and
\nurge the Provinces to submit an initial response to the draft through the
\nAnglican Communion Office by the end of 2007. In the meantime, we hope that
\nthe Anglican Communion Office will move in the near future to the
\npublication of the minutes of the discussion that we have had, together with
\nthe minutes of the Joint Standing Committee’s discussion, so that some of
\nthe ideas and reflection that have already begun to emerge might assist and
\nstimulate reflection throughout the Communion.<\/p>\n

16. The proposal is that a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth
\nConference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and
\ncontributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will
\nbe presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the
\nProvinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any
\ndefinitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical
\nprocesses of the Provinces.<\/p>\n

The Episcopal Church<\/strong><\/p>\n

17. At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church [5]
\nhas departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by
\nthe Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the
\nepiscopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex
\nrelationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The
\nepiscopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not
\nacceptable to the majority of the Communion.<\/p>\n

18. In 2005 the Primates asked The Episcopal Church to consider specific
\nrequests made by the Windsor Report [6]. On the first day of our meeting, we
\nwere joined by the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican
\nConsultative Council as we considered the responses of the 75th General
\nConvention. This is the first time that we have been joined by the Standing
\nCommittee at a Primates’ Meeting, and we welcome and commend the spirit of
\ncloser co-operation between the Instruments of Communion.<\/p>\n

19. We are grateful for the comprehensive and clear report commissioned by
\nthe Joint Standing Committee. We heard from the Presiding Bishop and three
\nother bishops [7] representing different perspectives within The Episcopal
\nChurch. Each spoke passionately about their understanding of the problems
\nwhich The Episcopal Church faces, and possible ways forward. Each of the
\nfour, in their own way, looked to the Primates to assist The Episcopal
\nChurch. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us on
\nthis occasion to hear directly this range of views.<\/p>\n

20. We believe several factors must be faced together. First, the Episcopal
\nChurch has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we
\nexpress our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention.<\/p>\n

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about
\nthe stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the
\nauthorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions.
\nThere appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General
\nConvention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General
\nConvention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined
\nto pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development
\nand authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral
\nprovision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous
\nstance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.<\/p>\n

22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth
\nConference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising
\nor blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral
\nletter of May 2003,<\/p>\n

“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is
\nthrough liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no
\ntheological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot
\nsupport the authorisation of such rites.”.<\/p>\n

23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General
\nConvention [8] does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor
\nReport.<\/p>\n

24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine
\nhas not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise
\nthat The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.<\/p>\n

25. It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay
\npeople in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor
\nReport and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11).
\nThese faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the
\nfailure of The Episcopal Church to adopt the Windsor proposals in full. They
\ndesire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican
\nCommunion. They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and
\nlive by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true. We
\nare deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of
\nthe faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination,
\nhostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.<\/p>\n

26. The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some
\nProvinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report,
\nhowever well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore,
\nthose Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is
\nright to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient
\nprovision has been made for the life of those persons.<\/p>\n

27. A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops
\nhave indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience
\nto accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and
\nhave requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to consider
\nmaking provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the
\nsame time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in
\naccordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which
\nmust be respected.<\/p>\n

28. These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making
\npresentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates
\nmight contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church
\nand more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal
\nChurch was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to
\npreserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such
\nchange and development which is required must be generated within its own
\nlife.<\/p>\n

The Future<\/strong><\/p>\n

29. We believe that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the
\nAnglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to
\nre-establish our interdependent life. By making explicit what Anglicans mean
\nby the “bonds of affection” and securing the commitment of each Province to
\nthose bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and
\nenhanced.<\/p>\n

30. However, an interim response is required in the period until the
\nCovenant is secured. For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in
\nthe interim, it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as
\ninterpreted by the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and
\ncomprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.<\/p>\n

31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The
\nEpiscopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in
\nThe Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor
\nReport.<\/p>\n

32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe
\nthat we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in
\nsituations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal
\njurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is
\na robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and
\ncongregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to
\nflourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the
\nconclusion of the Covenant Process.<\/p>\n

33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church
\nthere are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain
\nof our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine
\nor subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an
\nurgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to
\nbring an end to all interventions.<\/p>\n

34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an
\nend to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in
\nthe House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests
\nfor clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they
\nperceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to
\nan end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that
\npastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs
\nsimultaneously.<\/p>\n

35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we
\nwould have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is
\nthe imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ,
\nthat we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have
\nset these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider
\nCommunion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
\nin the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the
\nperiod leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope
\nthat the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further
\ninterventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church
\nwill themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.<\/p>\n

Wider Application<\/strong><\/p>\n

36. The primates recognise that such pastoral needs as those considered here
\nare not limited to The Episcopal Church alone. Nor do such pastoral needs
\narise only in relation to issues of human sexuality. The primates believe
\nthat until a covenant for the Anglican Communion is secured, it may be
\nappropriate for the Instruments of Communion to request the use of this or a
\nsimilar scheme in other contexts should urgent pastoral needs arise.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

37. Throughout this meeting, the primates have worked and prayed for the
\nhealing and unity of the Anglican Communion. We also pray that the Anglican
\nCommunion may be renewed in its discipleship and mission in proclaiming the
\nGospel. We recognise that we have been wrestling with demanding and
\ndifficult issues and we commend the results of our deliberations to the
\nprayers of the people. We do not underestimate the difficulties and
\nheart-searching that our proposals will cause, but we believe that
\ncommitment to the ways forward which we propose can bring healing and
\nreconciliation across the Communion.<\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the
\nAnglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.
\n2. Cf The Windsor Report and the Statement of the Primates at Dromantine.<\/p>\n

3. Gramado, May 2003; Lambeth, October 2003; Dromantine, February 2005.
\n4. Dromantine Statement, paragraph 15.<\/p>\n

5. The Episcopal Church is the name adopted by the Church formerly known as
\nThe Episcopal Church (USA). The Province operates across a number of
\nnations, and decided that it was more true to its international nature not
\nto use thedesignation USA. It should not be confused with those other
\nProvinces and Churches of the Anglican Communion which share the name
\n“Episcopal Church”.
\n6. (1) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the
\nproper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events
\nsurrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New
\nHampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an
\nexpression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church
\n(USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal Church (USA) be
\ninvited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the
\nconsecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same
\ngender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.
\n(TWR \u00a7134)
\n(3) we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that
\nbishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be
\ninvited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of
\naffection were breached by such authorisation. (TWR \u00a7144)
\nA fourth request (TWR \u00a7135) was discharged by the presentation of The
\nEpiscopal Church made at ACC-13 in Nottingham, UK, in 2005.<\/p>\n

6. Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network
\nof Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes; Bishop Christopher Epting,
\nDeputy for Ecumenical Affairs in The Episcopal Church; Bishop Bruce
\nMcPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, President of the Presiding Bishop’s
\nCouncil of Advice, and a member of the “Camp Allen” bishops.<\/p>\n

7. Set out and discussed in the Report of the Communion Sub-Group presented
\nat the Meeting.<\/p>\n

The Key Recommendations of the Primates<\/strong><\/p>\n

Foundations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore
\nemphasise the need to:<\/p>\n

a.. affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching
\ncommanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in
\nResolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);
\nb.. set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
\nc.. encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church,
\nbetween The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and
\nbetween The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
\nd.. respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of
\nthe Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual
\nresponsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the
\nCommunion as a whole;
\ne.. respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent
\ndevelopments in the Episcopal Church.
\nIn order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult
\nsituation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the
\nfollowing actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are
\nintended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a
\ndefinitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to
\nthe Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new
\nprovision may be required.<\/p>\n

A Pastoral Council<\/strong><\/p>\n

a.. The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the
\nPrimates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall
\nconsist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the
\nPresiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion
\nnominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
\nb.. The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the
\nPresiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the
\nscheme proposed below to
\na.. negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would
\nmeet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, \u00a7147-155) and the Primates’
\nrequests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003 [1];
\nb.. authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including
\nthe criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the
\nscheme;
\nc.. assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;
\no liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who
\ncurrently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those
\nparishes within the scheme;
\nd.. facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The
\nEpiscopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated
\nfrom it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican
\nCommunion (TWR, \u00a7156);
\ne.. advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;
\nf.. monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;
\ng.. consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the
\nWindsor Report \u00a7157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or
\nits bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal
\nChurch and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;
\nh.. take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this
\nscheme and report to the Primates.<\/p>\n


\nA Pastoral Scheme<\/strong><\/p>\n

a.. We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who
\nin the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their
\nbishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the
\noversight of other jurisdictions.
\nb.. We have received representations from a number of bishops of The
\nEpiscopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles
\nset out in two recent letters[2] . We recognise that these bishops are
\ntaking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion
\nwith the Anglican Communion.
\nc.. We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to
\nconsent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
\nOn this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be
\nestablished in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such
\nindividuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and
\ncongregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that<\/p>\n

a.. the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops
\nexpressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” [3], or as otherwise
\ndetermined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
\nb.. in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding
\nBishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial
\nVicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
\nc.. the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will
\ndelegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
\nOnce this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the
\nPrimates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in
\ncurrent arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of
\npastoral oversight set out above.<\/p>\n

We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide
\nsufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of
\ntheir bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The
\nEpiscopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant
\nProcess is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.<\/p>\n

Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA,
\nthe Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently
\nministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We
\nbelieve that with goodwill this may be possible.<\/p>\n

On Clarifying the Response to Windsor<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church
\naddressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at
\ntheir Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request
\nfor forgiveness made [4]. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th
\nGeneral Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and
\nits recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of
\nthose responses.<\/p>\n

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the
\nHouse of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
\n1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise
\nany Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through
\nGeneral Convention (cf TWR, \u00a7143, 144); and
\n2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General
\nConvention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex
\nunion shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, \u00a7134);
\nunless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf
\nTWR, \u00a7134).<\/p>\n

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to
\nthe Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
\nIf the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good
\nconscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the
\nAnglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has
\nconsequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the
\nCommunion.<\/p>\n

On property disputes<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those
\ncongregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law
\narising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that
\nno steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church
\nwithout its consent or to deny the use of that property to those
\ncongregations.<\/p>\n

Appendix One<\/strong><\/p>\n

“The Camp Allen Principles”<\/p>\n

The commitments expressed in the letter of 22nd September 2006 were:<\/p>\n

a.. an acceptance of Lambeth 1998 Res. I.10 as expressing, on its given
\ntopic, the mind of the Communion to which we subject our own teaching and
\ndiscipline;
\nb.. an acceptance of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates at
\nDromantine, as outlining the Communion’s “way forward” for our own church’s
\nreconciliation and witness within the Communion;
\nc.. a personal acceptance by each of us of the particular recommendations
\nmade by the Windsor Report to ECUSA, and a pledge to comply with them;
\nd.. a clear sense that General Convention 2006 did not adequately respond
\nto the requests made of ECUSA by the Communion through the Windsor Report;
\ne.. a clear belief that we faithfully represent ECUSA in accordance with
\nthis church’s Constitution and Canons, as properly interpreted by the
\nScripture and our historic faith and discipline;
\nf.. a desire to provide a common witness through which faithful Anglican
\nEpiscopalians committed to our Communion life might join together for the
\nrenewal of our church and the furtherance of the mission of Christ Jesus.
\nThe principles expressed in the letter of 11th January 2007 were:<\/p>\n

1. It is our hope that you will explicitly recognize that we are in full
\ncommunion with you in order to maintain the integrity of our ministries
\nwithin our dioceses and the larger Church.
\n2. We are prepared, among other things, to work with the Primates and with
\nothers in our American context to make provision for the varying needs of
\nindividuals, congregations, dioceses and clergy to continue to exercise
\ntheir ministries as the Covenant process unfolds. This includes the needs of
\nthose seeking primatial ministry from outside the United States, those
\ndioceses and parishes unable to accept the ordination of women, and
\ncongregations which sense they can no longer be inside the Episcopal Church.
\n3. We are prepared to offer oversight, with the agreement of the local
\nbishop, of congregations in dioceses whose bishops are not fully supportive
\nof Communion teaching and discipline.
\n4. We are prepared to offer oversight to congregations who are currently
\nunder foreign jurisdictions in consultation with the bishops and Primates
\ninvolved.
\n5. Finally, we respectfully request that the Primates address the issue of
\ncongregations within our dioceses seeking oversight in foreign
\njurisdictions. We are Communion-committed bishops and find the option of
\nturning to foreign oversight presents anomalies which weaken our own
\ndiocesan familieis and places strains on the Communion as a whole.<\/p>\n

Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that
\nbishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and
\nprovinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make
\nadequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within
\ntheir own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of
\nCanterbury on behalf of the Primates (Lambeth, October 2003)<\/p>\n

2. Namely, a letter of 22nd September 2006 to the Archbishop of Canterbury
\nand a further letter of 11th 2007 to the Primates setting out a number of
\ncommitments and proposals. These commitments and principles are colloquially
\nknown as “the Camp Allen principles”. (see Appendix One)
\n3. As set out in Appendix One.<\/p>\n

4. Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church,
\nmindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us
\nby Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining
\nthe bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of
\n2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to
\nthose within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to
\naccord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and
\nother parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into
\ndeeper levels of communion one with another. The Communion Sub-Group added
\nthe comment: “These words were not lightly offered, and should not be
\nlighted received.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Communique Of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam 19th February 2007 1. We, the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, gathered for mutual consultation and prayer at Dar es Salaam between 15th and 19th February 2007 at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and as guests of the Primate of Tanzania,…
Read more →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2540,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30\/revisions\/2540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katrinasdream.org\/dreamscape\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}