Search Results • Archives of the Anglican Church of Canada

Prologue: Bishop Johnson lead the first session on Shared Episcopal Ministry. He informed the bishops that he was presenting the report, "Shared Episcopal Ministry, Addendum to the Primate's Task Force report on AEO" for clarification and not for discussion.) He then reviewed the report, which proposed a model for shared episcopal ministry (where a diocesan bishop would share episcopal oversight with another bishop). The report also recommended that consideration be given by the diocesan synods to having a motion re Shared Episcopal Ministry when considering whether or not to allow same sex blessings in their dioceses.; The Primate's Task Force on Alternative Episcopal Oversight was made up of: Bishop Hiltz (chair), Bishop Bruce, Bishop Howe and Bishop Johnson. Archdeacon Feheley provided staff support to the task force.; Bishop Johnson reminded the bishops of the discussion they had had at their meeting in April [2004]. At that time they had agreed that the situation was serious, but could not come up with a proposal for how to continue. Bishop Johnson noted that the report he was presenting was an addendum report to the original report from the Task Force on AEO. He pointed out that the task force had decided to use the term "shared episcopal ministry" rather than "adequate episcopal oversight".; Archbishop Hutchison invited questions and comments for clarification (not debate).; Bishop Hiltz and Bishop George facilitated the second session about Shared Episcopal [Ministry].; Bishop Hiltz put three questions to the bishops for discussion in their table groups. They were asked to record their conversations for the task force.; Questions:; 1. What can I affirm in the addendum ?; 2. Is there anything in the addendum that causes me concern ?; 3. If I had a suggestion for strengthening the addendum, it would be ...; The groups reported back in plenary.; Bishop George lead the House through some revisions to the proposal made by the task force based on the bishops' comments during their first session on the addendum report.

Text: "Be it resolved that in accordance with the Windsor Report (para 153), this House of Bishops at its meeting of November 3rd 2004, adopt the Addendum to the Report of its Task Force on Shared Episcopal Ministry, and in the interest of our commitment to unity and reconciliation commend it to all dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada." CARRIED Res. #HB-04-10-02

Notes: [Text of the report "Shared Episcopal Ministry, Addendum to the Primate's Task Force report on AEO" is available electronically on the Anglican Church of Canada website at: http://www.anglican.ca/primate/files/2010/11/SEM.pdf . Text also available in full below.]; Shared Episcopal Ministry; This model recognizes the reality that one Canadian diocesan synod has and that in the future others may also deal with the question of whether to allow the blessing of same sex relationships to take place within the parishes of their dioceses. In the event of a diocesan synod and bishop agreeing to such blessings we believe that it is important that a binding conscience clause for parishes and clergy be available. Regardless of the outcome of those Synods some parishes may feel disenfranchised and vulnerable, and therefore desire to seek Shared Episcopal Ministry, where the diocesan bishop would share his/her episcopal oversight with another bishop. When a diocese is considering the question of blessings, we believe that the same synod should consider a motion that would allow Shared Episcopal Ministry in their diocese. Such a resolution should include the provisions outlined at para 3) and 4) below.; The Process of Shared Episcopal Ministry; 1. The Metropolitan of each Province would be responsible for assembling a list of current and retired bishops in good standing in the Canadian Church and who would be willing to participate in providing Shared Episcopal Ministry within the province. The provincial house of bishops must approve the list. The Metropolitan will not be included on the list for his/her Province. It would be important to have a number of bishops from different theological perspectives so that all parishes requesting Shared Episcopal Ministry might be served. A bishop from another province of the Communion would be eligible to be on the Metropolitan's list with the assurance that he/she would participate under the terms of these arrangements as outlined. The bishop would be designated as an episcopal assistant to the Metropolitan.; 2. When a diocese has agreed to Shared Episcopal Ministry through a synod resolution the costs of that ministry, like all episcopal ministry is deemed to be an expense of the diocese. A suitable budget must also be agreed to between the individual parish and the diocese for the provision of Shared Episcopal Ministry.; 3. If the incumbent and members of the parish believe that they cannot work with their bishop in the light of the current disagreements on issues of human sexuality , the rector and the canonically designated lay leadership shall meet with the bishop in a spirit of openness to seek reconciliation. After such a meeting, it is hoped that a mutually agreeable way forward can be found. If it is not a parish may elect the option of Shared Episcopal Ministry by a resolution passing with a 2/3 majority of those present and voting at a duly constituted parish meeting [1]. The incumbent must also concur with the decision.; 4. In order for the parish resolution to become effective the following provisions are to be followed:; - a. The parish and the diocesan bishop would choose a suitable bishop from the provincial list to provide Shared Episcopal Ministry taking into account such things as theological perspective and proximity to the parish. Their decision will be conveyed to the Metropolitan who may be asked to assist with the process.; - b. The parish would retain its voice and vote at synod and would be free to participate in the councils of the Church at all levels.; - c. The parish must maintain its current and future financial commitments to the diocese.; - d. The parish would be free to undertake new Church developments subject to diocesan procedures.; - e. Both the parish and the diocesan bishop would review the decision every three years or earlier if desired.; 5. The duties of the bishop involved in Shared Episcopal Ministry takes as its point of origin the example of dioceses where there is/are suffragan bishop(s). He or she would not have jurisdiction but would be part of the process on appointments, episcopal visits, confirmations, pastoral care of clergy, advice on potential ordinands and participate in ordinations. This model would honour the process of appointment that each diocese currently follows. The diocese would insure that wide ranges of theological perspectives were represented on the committee dealing with postulants for ordination.; 6. In the event that the parish seeking Shared Episcopal Ministry is in the diocese of the Metropolitan the senior bishop by date of consecration would fulfill the role given to the Metropolitan.; The model described above is designed to deal with the circumstances in which all sides acknowledge that there is a level of dissent between a parish and their diocesan bishop, however negotiated oversight is feasible Shared Episcopal Ministry as defined can provide a means of episcopal pastoral care and direction for the parish.; A Process in Circumstances requiring Conciliation; What follows is designed to deal with the circumstances in which all sides acknowledge that there is such a level of dissent and /or distrust between a parish and their diocesan bishop that negotiated oversight is not feasible To overcome the obstacle posed by such a high level of dissent, some means must be identified to provide Shared Episcopal Ministry from outside of the diocesan structure. The parish or the diocesan bishop may appeal to the Metropolitan using the following process.; 1. The Metropolitan of each province would be responsible for assembling a list of current and retired bishops in good standing in the Canadian Church and who would be willing to participate in providing Shared Episcopal Ministry within the province. The provincial house of bishops must approve the list. The Metropolitan will not be included on the list for his/her Province. It would be important to have a number of bishops from different theological perspectives so that all parishes requesting Shared Episcopal Ministry might be served. A bishop from another province of the Communion would be eligible to be on The Metropolitan's list with the assurance that he/she would participate under the terms of these arrangements as outlined. The bishop would be designated as an episcopal assistant to the Metropolitan.; 2. If the incumbent and members of the parish or the diocesan bishop believe that they cannot work together in the light of the current disagreements on issues of human sexuality , the rector and the canonically designated lay leadership shall meet with the bishop in a spirit of openness to seek reconciliation. After such a meeting, it is hoped that a mutually agreeable way forward can be found. If it is not, a parish may elect the option of Shared Episcopal Ministry by a resolution passing with a 2/3 majority of those present and voting at a duly constituted parish meeting [2]. The incumbent must also concur with the decision.; 3. The diocesan bishop would seek the consent of his/her diocesan council (or equivalent) to implement Shared Episcopal Ministry. The parish or the diocesan bishop would advise the other party that they were petitioning the Metropolitan to appoint a bishop to provide Shared Episcopal Ministry.; 4. The Metropolitan shall meet with all involved to endeavour to resolve the outstanding issues. The Metropolitan may request two others who are acceptable to both parties to join him/her to review the situation, to consider the appeal, and to make recommendations to all parties.; 5. Prior to implementation the Metropolitan will have ensured that there is an agreement between the Parish and the diocese on how all costs related to Shared Episcopal Ministry will be borne, including diocesan assessment.; 6. With the consent of the Diocesan Bishop and of the parish, the Metropolitan will appoint a bishop to provide Shared Episcopal Ministry from the list approved by the provincial house of bishops. The Metropolitan would take into account the question of reasonable proximity to the parish and diocese and the theological position of the parish .; 7. The parish would retain its voice and vote at synod and would be free to participate in the councils of the Church at all levels.; 8. The parish would be free to undertake new Church developments subject to diocesan procedures.; 9. Both the parish and the diocesan bishop will review the decision every three years or earlier if desired.; 10. The Duties of the bishop involved in Shared Episcopal Ministry takes as its point of origin the example of dioceses where there is/are suffragan bishop(s). He or she would not have jurisdiction but would be part of the process on appointments, episcopal visits, confirmations, pastoral care of clergy, advice on potential ordinands and participate in ordinations. This model would honour the process of appointment that each diocese currently follows. The diocese would insure that wide ranges of theological perspectives were represented on the committee dealing with postulants for ordination.; 11. In the event that the parish seeking Shared Episcopal Ministry is in the diocese of the Metropolitan the senior bishop by date of consecration would fulfill the role given to the Metropolitan.; Conclusion; Shared Episcopal Ministry provided under either circumstance is based on a spirit of reconciliation, co-operation and goodwill. In order not to institutionalize schism it is always to be understood as a temporary arrangement directed toward reconciliation between the parties. . Changes in parish or diocesan leadership are appropriate times for renewed efforts towards the ultimate goal of full restoration of the relationship between the parish and its bishop.; Endnote; The document says that; “The Duties of the bishop involved in Shared Episcopal Ministry takes as its point of origin the example of dioceses where there is/are suffragan bishop(s). He or she would not have jurisdiction but would be part of the process on appointments, episcopal visits, confirmations, pastoral care of clergy, advice on potential ordinands and participate in ordinations. This model would honour the process of appointment that each diocese currently follows”.; In reference to Suffragan bishops and appointments there are a variety of models that are followed across the Canadian Church; - In Huron the suffragan appoints and the diocesan signs the license; - In Nova Scotia and PEI the diocesan appoints and signs the license; - In Toronto the Area (or suffragan) signs the appointment letter and co-signs the license with the diocesan.; We would recommend that the diocesan bishop and the bishop involved with Shared Episcopal Ministry clarify the process they will use prior to the bishop beginning his/her ministry in a parish.; [1] Whenever the term parish meeting is used in this document it refers to the full members of the parish that have the right to be present and to vote at its annual meeting as defined by the canons of the diocese; [2] Whenever the term parish meeting is used in this document it refers to the full members of the parish that have the right to be present and to vote at its annual meeting as defined by the canons of the diocese

Subjects: Anglican Church of Canada. House of Bishops. Task Force on Alternative Episcopal Oversight; Anglican Church of Canada. Primate's Task Force on Alternative Episcopal Oversight; Shared Episcopal Ministry; Alternative episcopal oversight - Anglican Church of Canada; Episcopacy - Anglican Church of Canada; Windsor Report

11 records – page 2 of 2.

Prev Next

Refine By

Source

Name

Subject

Material Type

Decade

Database

Shared Episcopal Ministry

http://archives.anglican.ca/en/permalink/official9049