This Plan is DOA

I've been away from my computer a lot in the last few days because my husband had a triple bypass on Thursday. We discovered the need for this in a routine visit to his cardiologist, not by his having a heart attack. He is recovering well, thanks be to God, and we expect to have him home today or tomorrow.

So, while I was watching him sleep this afternoon, I decided to catch up on the goings-on in Anglican Land. Well, good grief! You look away for a minute and all sorts of things pop up.

The big news is a back room deal that's been hatched up by a bunch of bishops as a way to "save" the Anglican Communion. And yes, it's been a "secret," because transparency is apparently a concept that eludes the Archbishop of Canterbury and too many other bishops and primates.

This plan has been described as a combination of features of the primatial oversight plan that came out of the Primates meeting in the Dar es Salaam Communique, which included a "Pastoral Council," consisting of four Archbishops who are not members of the Episcopal Church; and the plan Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori offered as an Episcopal Visitors Plan. Her plan also suggested a "Pastoral Council," made up of five foreign Primates, but the Presiding Bishop would have more authority than in the Dar es Salaam recommendation.

The first report by Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph in England called it a "secret plan." While Petre's article blew the plan's cover, he got a lot wrong -- a common occurrence with this journalist.

Then George Conger reported that the secret plan was "backed" by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

While Conger got more things right than did Petre, I can find no statement from the presiding bishop that she is backing this plan --which was worked up by a lot of guys without consultation with her. After the guys were happy with it, they simply "presented" to her.

Then Kendall Harmon's site posted a letter from Bp. John Howe that appears to give the most accurate description of this "secret plan.'

Here is the full text of Bp. Howe's letter:

-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow. And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday's meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

Petre could not have been much more inaccurate! Here are his opening remarks:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a 'parallel' Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality.... Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders...."Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world's bishops.... "According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues."

No, Dear Friends. Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday. We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:

Communion Partners

In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.

Purpose:
To provide a visible link for those concerned to the Anglican Communion.
Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.

To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops.

The Bishops who have been designated Episcopal Visitors together with others who might well consider being included in this number share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future, and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the Global South. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.

To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles.

The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.

Scope:
The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure

Are committed to non-boundary-crossing: the relationships will be governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and cooperation

Will work with mutual cooperation within and beyond the partnership

Participants:
The Episcopal Visitors who desire to participate (EVs named at House of Bishops New Orleans)
Those Bishops who are willing to serve as EVs
Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East

Transparency:
Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury
Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches

Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprize [sic] her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in "border crossing," nor would we be. We will visit no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop's invitation and permission. We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.

I hope this is helpful, and I thank you for your prayers regarding this important meeting.

Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
1017 East Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801

-----------------------------------------------------------
Good try, boys, but this isn't going to work. At least not as far as Bp. Jack Iker is concerned.

For one thing, it still has girl cooties all over it, because the Presiding Bishop would still be involved -- even though you have marginalized her about as much as you possibly could.

Secondly, Bp. Iker was not consulted on this, according to Conger. I'd say that's a deal breaker right there, even if the girl cootie factor wasn't there. Bp. Iker does NOT like being left out of "deals" that involve him. Hey, can you blame him?

Thirdly, the commitment to no border crossing pretty much leaves the Diocese of Fort Worth out, since our leadership is already well on its way to the Southern Cone, moving happily hand-in-hand with one of the chief border crossers, Greg Venables, presiding bishop of the Southern Cone. Venables has been busily building up the population of his teensy province by poaching in both Canada and the US.

And then there's the involvement of Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies. The enthusiasm in this plan for the development of an Anglican Covenant clearly is driven by Gomez, since he's the chair of the committee to develop such a Covenant.

Why the Archbishop of Canterbury did not remove Gomez as chair of this committee after he participated in the consecrations in Kenya of bishops whose task is to border cross to poach in the United States is one of the many mysteries surrounding the thinking of Rowan Williams.

But didn't it occur to the authors of a plan that commits to no border crossing that including someone who has supported border crossers among its members might not be a good idea?

This plan should be DOA.