Episcopal Proposals for Oversight Draws Conflicting Responses
LONDON - The spiritual head of the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion said that he is “glad to see” that an Episcopal meeting in New York to consider the questions raised by requests for “alternative primatial oversight” had produced imaginative proposals that potentially represent a very significant development.
Speaking on Friday, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said, “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 forbearance and generosity.”
The Anglican head’s statement came just a day the announcement by a group of bishops, including Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, that it had developed a proposal responding to “An Appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The proposal addressed what other petitioning bishops and dioceses have termed “alternative primatial oversight” or “alternative primatial relationship.”
A press statement released from the Anglican Communion states: “The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has given a cautious welcome to proposals outlined by the Episcopal Church in the United States to offer alternative forms of oversight to dissenting parishes and dioceses. Dr Williams said that the proposals would contribute to the process of determining future relationships.”
In other responses, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan issued a Nov. 30 statement in his role as moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP), saying that the proposal appears to fall short of his organization’s wishes.
Member dioceses of NACDP include those who asked Williams for a relationship with a primate other than Jefferts Schori.
Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth also reacted. “While I am grateful for the efforts of those who crafted the proposal, I find it unacceptable and unworkable in its present form,” he said.
“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.”
In particular Iker noted, “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.”
The Rev David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council (AAC), was also critical of the proposal.
He said the proposals “keeps all the power in her hands,” referring to the Presiding Bishop. “Thus she makes all the decisions. It is a non-starter.”
