I write in response to your letter of May 5th. Since it has found its way all over the internet, I am constrained to respond more broadly than just in a personal note.

With great respect it must be said that considering what you now write in the light of what you have already done brings to mind the old cliche of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It's like the doctor telling the grieving family that the operation was a success even though the patient has died.

You speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you not see that there is an enormous contradiction here?

The key path to alleviating that pain is repentance. It is simple to turn around and join the spiritual and doctrinal direction of the Anglican Communion and the overwhelming majority of the Christians of history and the world today.

When one considers that you were advised by the Lambeth Bishops Conference, the ACC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury that to proceed would bring a harvest of pain, it is hard to see why you find the consequences you now experience surprising.

You indicate that the action of the General Convention was constitutional. Of course I am not an expert in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, but I do remember the commitment of your General Convention to initiate an "inter-Anglican and ecumenical dialogue on human sexuality issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own (B-020)." (A ten minute search of internet archives shows that!) Many colleagues have also reminded me that you were clear that the official position of ECUSA was parallel to that of Lambeth I. 10 at a number of Primates meetings. When was that changed, or was it just ignored? Of course there is pain when you moved ahead in violation of your own Convention decisions.

In addition, I saw the broadcast of objections to Gene Robinson's consecration which were simply and totally ignored.

How can these be constitutional actions?

You cling to the statement that "what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us..." That statement was made before you chose to be the chief consecrator at an event you knew would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level."

At a time like this, simply celebrating what we hold in common is like a man arguing before a judge that his offence should be overlooked because he hasn't broken other laws.

You cannot offer a band aid to a person who needs open heart surgery.

The situation must be addressed at the root of the disorder. You don't heal a disease by treating its symptoms.

You tell us that "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" is moving toward solving the problem in your province. It is not so. First of all it leaves the decisions in the hands of the offending bishops and does not give any substantive protection to parishes that maintain Anglican teaching and practice. In addition, we are aware of ECUSA clergy and parishes who have been ordered by their revisionist bishops not to ask for alternative oversight, threatened if they do, or who live in areas where bishops have publicly stated that they will not allow it. The fact that "some" bishops will arrange for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight does not mean at all that it can be put in place where it is really needed.

And when did those who hold to the apostolical, biblical faith and practice of Christianity as accepted for 2000 years suddenly become "dissidents"?

You now say that you want to be in conversation. In the light of your previous great reticence to discuss the matter in our meetings this is tragically late in the day.

ECUSA's actions have caused a great and unnecessary crisis in the Anglican Communion that has spilled over into culture, ecumenical affairs, and even interfaith relations. It is tragic and painful indeed. It is the result of your actions and it is also reversible.

You have insisted on autonomy from the Lambeth resolutions, from the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea, from the ACC, and from the Primates to pursue an agenda that is absolutely scandalous to most Christians.

That view of autonomy is the opposite of everything Anglicanism has always stood for. Why would you still want to call yourself Anglican? May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you.

May God guide us in love and truth at this crucial and sad time.

+Greg

The Most Revd Gregory J. Venables
Primate of the Southern Cone of the Americas

GRISWOLD'S LETTER TO THE PRIMATES

May 5, 2004

For the Primates of the Anglican Communion

My dear brothers,

Grace to you and peace in our risen Savior Jesus Christ.

I find myself, in these days of Easter in which we contemplate the mystery of the resurrection and its consequences in our lives, living with a sharp awareness of the reality of our being bound together in the Lord because of our baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And, that being thus bound we are called to share one another's sufferings as well as joys. Over these months I have been deeply grieved that recent events in the life of the Episcopal Church in the United States have caused suffering for many of you. I am very clear that what occurred is in accord with our Constitution and is widely regarded as a faithful action. However, as your brother I am profoundly sorry for the wound this has caused within our body.

As I have said many times to the bishops of the Episcopal Church and to others, what we do in one part of the Communion can have significant consequences elsewhere. I remember vividly when we were together last October at Lambeth hearing from some of you about finding yourselves ridiculed and made a laughing stock because of your association with the Episcopal Church. I completely understand why some of you have spoken so harshly about what has occurred here. At the same time, many of us who love you deeply in the Lord are profoundly saddened that our fellowship is so severely strained, and in some cases appears to be broken.

I pray that in spite of our differences, serious as they are, we can discover together in this difficult time the truth of what we said in our statement of last October that "what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world." The prayer of my heart is that we can discover anew our unity in service to God's mission through these difficulties. Our world, which is so burdened by poverty, disease and civil strife, is much in need of our common witness and action.

I regret that this communication is through a letter rather than a conversation. I hope we as primates will encourage ongoing conversations at all levels between people of our various provinces. I do believe that as we explore what we share across our differences we rediscover our common ground in service to God's continuing work of reconciliation. In conversation our differences do not disappear. Instead we find ourselves grounded upon the rock of Christ whose deathless love is able to transform our mistrust and woundedness into mutual care and affection.

It is my deepest sense that we have much to learn from one another, particularly as we seek to proclaim the gospel in our often very different contexts. The visits I have been privileged to make to several of your provinces have certainly made that very plain, and I have come away with an enlarged and deeper sense of how God is acting in this world to save us all from the power of sin and death.

On another matter, I want to share with you the response of the bishops of the Episcopal Church to the concern expressed in our Lambeth statement of last October that there be "adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates." The bishops of the Episcopal Church are called to be chief pastors for all people in their dioceses. They have continued to shape a plan for pastoral care which they first put forward in 2002.

They have addressed how bishops with different perspectives, overseeing dioceses in which there are varying points of view, can bear one another's burdens and uphold one another's ministries for the sake of the gospel and its proclamation. When we met in March of this year we further refined our plan, which was then agreed to by an overwhelming majority. It is set forth in the enclosed document: Caring for all the churches.

I am in conversation with a number of bishops, whose theological perspectives meet the pastoral needs of "dissenting minorities," about making themselves available to provide episcopal oversight at the invitation of the diocesan bishop. As well, I know of several instances where diocesan bishops have arranged or are about to arrange for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.

Key to what we are trying to do at this time is the shared understanding of our bishops that an episcopal ministry of care and oversight is not a personal possession of any one bishop but is shared by all bishops for the well being of the church as a whole.

Please pray for us as we pray for you in these days that challenge us all in the various contexts in which the Lord has placed us.

This comes, as ever, with my love and prayers,

The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA

END