More details will be available soon, but if you'd like to "Like" our new page now, you can find it here.

The first three Sundays, July 11th, July 18th, and July 25th, will use Rite I, while the Sundays of August 1st, August 8th, and August 15th will use Rite II.  

This adjusted Summer schedule will allow parishioners to worship alongside, and fellowship with, those they do not often see on Sundays.  It will also provide a simpler schedule as families travel and children attend camps, and will help serving organizations to better pool their resources as parishioners may be out of town.  We pray you will use this as an opportunity to give you and your family more time this summer, and to allow the parish to possibly save on utilities.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation as we work to seek and serve Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

The Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Dallas will celebrate the Holy Eucharist, preach, baptize and confirm and receive on Sunday, June 13th at the parish.  All are welcome and encouraged to attend for the 10:30 a.m. liturgy and the 9:15 a.m. forum in the parish hall at which the Bishop will address questions concerning the Diocese, Church and Communion.

Early Saturday morning, a longtime, faithful parishioner of Saint David of Wales, Fran DuChemin entered eternal life.  Funeral will be Wednesday, May 12th at 11 a.m. in the church.  Donations can be made to the Memorial Fund.  May she rest in peace and rise in glory.

Today, March 10, 2010, trees were planted in the Prayer Garden by the Parish Offices to complete phase one of the landscaping project.  Phase one has already been paid for by members of the parish and the parish will be now be invited to participate in phase two of the project which will include the opportunity to purchase a plant or shrub for the garden in thanksgiving or in memory of a loved one.  Plans are being made to have a parish work day, planting the smaller scrubs and plants while having a cookout for those who participate in the planting day.  Below is a picture of a portion of what will be the beautiful prayer garden for all to enjoy and use.

The results of the elections were as follows:

Vestry - 3 year terms - Dave Mays, John Siegmund and Judy Johnston

2010 Diocesan Convention Delegates - Vern Bassett, Pete Bradbury, Jolayne LaCour and Jan Rousey and

first alternate Lindsay Keffer.

Vestry Officers for 2010 - David Williamson, Sr. Warden,

                                            Dave Mays, Jr. Warden,

                                            Jan Rousey, Treasurer and

                                            John Andrews as clerk.

The Anglican Communion Office has released, December 18, 2009, the final version of the Covenant that can be found here.  Response to the Covenant by Canon Neal Michell can be found here.  More reactions to the document will be forthcoming.

The Adult Choir offered Advent Lessons and Carols during the Liturgy of the Word on Advent II, December 6, 2009 which may be found here or by clicking on About Us at the top of this page and going to Sermons.

On December 1st and December 15th, Bishop Ackerman, retired Bishop of Quincy speaks to us concerning Advent and it's purpose in the Church Year.  His first presentation may be found by clicking here or on About Us (top of this page) and then Sermons.

You may now access Bishop Ackerman's presentation on Stewardship here or by clicking on "About Us" at the top of the page and then go to "Sermons" in the blue column on the right.

On October 20, 2009, a press conference was held at the Vatican announcing a way for disaffected Anglicans may join the Roman Catholic Communion, both clergy and laity.  This effort has a long history and can be found here.

Canon Heidt was the Interim Priest before Canon Herrmann's arrival as the Rector.

Lynne and Sam Prater have added a son to their family shortly after Noon on Thursday, October 1st.  Caitlyn's brother's name is Caleb and all are doing well.  Congrats go out to the Prater family.

Please find the following Summary Report of the parish survey taken earlier this year below or here in Adobe PDF format.  Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact the parish offices.

Summary Report

2009 Parish Survey

The Church of

Saint David of Wales

 Denton, Texas

September, 2009

Submitted by the Rector, Vestry, and Strategic Planning Committee
Executive Summary: Saint David of Wales Parish Survey 2009

A few highlights of the survey include:

·         The average age of survey respondents was 61.7 years and less than 20 percent were under 50 years of age. A majority were female (59%), and well educated (70 % with at least a college education).

·         Although most (69%) are cradle Episcopalians, 26 percent of parishioners come from a Protestant background.

·         A strong majority of parishioners responded that they are traditional Anglicans, conservative, and religious. Many also consider themselves Anglo-Catholic and/or Orthodox.

·         Most parishioners agree with the current mission of St. David’s, supporting traditional Anglican Worship, community-minded service, Bible teaching, the proclamation of Jesus, and welcoming seekers.

·         Top priority was given to Christian education, growth, hiring an Assistant Priest, and improving our current property. Many also expressed, as mentioned above, improving our offerings to youth and young married couples.

·         Most (75 %) prefer not to support planting a new mission parish or relocating St. David’s at this time.

·         In terms of our affiliations, a strong majority (78 %) expressed being comfortable with the Anglican Communion, while a smaller majority are uncomfortable with the Episcopal Church (56 %) or with the Fort Worth Diocese associated with it (59 %). However, there was substantial ambivalence and/or uncertainty about some of these affiliations and a great deal of diversity when it comes to religious self-characterization and comfort with various church affiliations.

We hope you will read this information carefully and thoughtfully, appreciating the great diversity that is present in the family of St. David of Wales. And we hope that you will pray for this church family, that we may become more self aware, more dedicated to the Divine purposes that bring us together, and more committed to our life and growth together.

SAINT DAVID OF WALES PARISH SURVEY 2009

[148  respondents (N=148) Unless otherwise noted, percentages are of those who responded to each particular question, not of total respondents. Some groups do not add to 100 due to rounding error.]

Age:                            Range from 16 to 99

(n=139)                       Average age of 61.7

                                    19.4 % of respondents under 50

Sex:                             Male                                        41 %

(n=147)                       Female                                     59 %

Education:                  LT High Sch.                              .7 %

(n=147)                       High School                              5.4 %            

                                    Some Coll.                              23.8 %

                                    College                                    34.7 %

                                    Graduate Sch.                         35.4 %

Marital Status:            Single                                        6.8 %

(n=147)                       Married                                   80.3 %

                                    Divorced                                   3.4 %

                                    Widowed                                  9.5 %

Membership:               Baptized/not confirmed            2.7 %

(n=147)                       Confirmed/member                 88.4 %

                                    Member oth. parish                     .7 %

                                    Member oth. denom.                 4.1 %

                                    Other                                         4.1 %

Years Confirmed:       Average 38.4 years

Years Member:           Average 14.8 years

Previous Affiliation:   Other Episcopal/Anglican        69.0 %

(n=142)                       Roman Catholic                        4.2 %

                                    Protestant                                26.1 %

                                    Other                                           .7 %

Attend Liturgy:           8:00 a.m.                                 36.7 %

(n=139)                     10:30 a.m.                                 57.6 %

                                    5:00 p.m.                                   5.8 %

Classes Attend:           7 a.m. Morning Prayer              1

 (number)                    Wed. p.m. Healing                  19

                                    Thurs. a.m. Eucharist                5

                                    Thurs. a.m. Bible Study            4

                                    Thurs. p.m. Bible Study            9

                                    Inquirer’s Class                         3

Number of Children:  Seventeen respondents reported having children, with an average of two                                        children per respondent.

Preferences for children: (number responding affirmatively)

                                    Improved curricula                             10

                                    Educ. opportunities outside class        5

                                    Social Activities                                   8

                                    Service opportunities                            9

                                    Nothing                                               12

Other improvements:  Better acolyte training

(for children)               Improve size and number

                                    Less drivel, more substance

                                    More young families

                                    Youth group

                                    Older children

Self

characterization:                               Not at all       (% of those responding)      Very well

                                    Trad. Anglican            2          3         12         23        60

                                    Liberal                       68         13        11           6          2

                                    Conservative               7           4        15          25       49

                                    Anglo-Catholic         15         11        19          26       30

                                    Evangelical                31         24        25          13        8

                                    Religious                     4           6        15          38       37

                                    Orthodox                  19           8        18          20       34

St. David’s Mission:                          Not at all       (% of those responding)      Essential

                                    Trad. Ang. Worshp     1           1          6          18          73 

                                    Comm. minded svc.    3           3        15          41           38

                                    Bible teaching             2           0          5          24           68

                                    Proclaim Jesus             2          0          2          13           84

                                    Welcome seekers        2           1        11          24           62

Priorities:                                                 None        (% of those responding)       High

(in order of positive responses)

                                    Christian Educ.           3            2        26          39        30

                                    Growth                         2            9        29          33        27

                                    Asst. Priest                 15          11        28           27       19

                                    Improve Property         8           10        38          33        12

                                    Singles ministry         15          17        30           31         8

                                    Canterbury                 16          17        32           24       12

                                    Local missions           12          17        37           26         9

                                    Day School                34         18        29           11         8

                                    Foreign missions        23          26        33           11        6

                                    New Mission Church 37          26        26             9        3

                                    Relocate                     63          15        12             9         1

Would you volunteer time and talent to establish new mission church?(n=128)

                                    Yes      25%

                                    No       75%

How willing are you to help establish a new mission church?(number responding affirmatively)

                        Planning                      22                   

                        Temporary attend        18                   

                        Financial                      18                   

                        Perm. transfer                3                   

                        Vol. services                22                   

Add liturgies? (number responding affirmatively)                             

                        Sat. Rite I                    34

                        Sat. Rite II                  27

                        Sun. Rite I                   13

                        Sun. Rite II                 10

                        None                           46

Add classes? (most common categories)

·         Adult Bible Study Sunday 9:15

                                    (church history, church fathers, orthodoxy, apologetics,

                                    Old Testament, C. S. Lewis, heresies)

·         Adult weekday evenings

·         Confirmation classes on Sunday

Comfort with Church Affiliations: (% of those responding to each, DK=don’t know)

                                                            Very                                                    Very

                                                    Uncomfortable                                      Comfortable            DK

            The Episcopal Church             36              22             8             6            18                      10

            Anglican Communion              2                1             6           18            60                      14

            Diocese of Dallas                      8              12            16          24            26                      14

            Diocese of Ft. Worth (Iker)    16                8              5          17            31                      24

            Diocese of Ft. Worth (TEC)   49              10              8            2              2                      29

            Anglican Province

            of North America                    10                3              8          12            33                      34

Vestry Resolution of the Church of Saint David of Wales

Denton, Texas

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

We, the Rector, Wardens and Vestry of The Church of Saint David of Wales, Denton, Texas (an Anglican Communion parish church in the Diocese of Dallas), do hereby declare our unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved; and we further acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6);

and we further declare that we understand God to be revealed as the Holy and Undivided Trinity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;

and we further acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation;

and we further acknowledge and uphold the Creeds of the ancient and undivided Church to be unchanging and unchangeable statements of belief of the Christian faith.

Therefore, be it resolved that we disassociate ourselves and reject those actions of the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church which are contrary to the Christian faith and to the teachings of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church;

and be it further resolved that we pledge our support to work for an authentic expression of Anglicanism in the United States of America;

and be it further resolved that we will continue to work for the extension of the Kingdom and the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this city of Denton, neither diluting the faith nor diminishing the revealed truth of that faith as it has been delivered to us by the saints.

 In the Holy Name of Jesus Christ,

The Rector, Wardens and Vestry of the Church of Saint David of Wales

On August 25, 2009

Canon H.W. Herrmann, SSC – Rector                       Jolayne LaCour – Vestry Member

Steve Hale – Senior Warden                                       Andy Odom – Vestry Member

David Williamson – Junior Warden                            Mary Jo Pickens – Vestry Member

Vern Bassett – Vestry Member                                  Jan Rousey – Vestry Member

Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future

Monday 27 July 2009

1

1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.

2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.

3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.

2

4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.

5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.

6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.

7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.

8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.

9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)

10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.

3

11. The second issue is the broader one of how a local church makes up its mind on a sensitive and controversial matter. It is of the greatest importance to remember this aspect of the matter, so as not to be completely trapped in the particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around.

12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.

13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in 'intensity, substance and extent' it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.

14. Sometimes in Christian history, of course, that wider discernment has been very fallible, as with the history of the Chinese missions in the seventeenth century. But this should not lead us to ignore or minimise the opposite danger of so responding to local pressure or change that a local church simply becomes isolated and imprisoned in its own cultural environment.

15. There have never been universal and straightforward rules about this, and no-one is seeking a risk-free, simple organ of doctrinal decision for our Communion. In an age of vastly improved communication, we must make the best use we can of the means available for consultation and try to build into our decision-making processes ways of checking whether a new local development would have the effect of isolating a local church or making it less recognisable to others. This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will quite reasonably want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to when a controversial local change occurs. The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.

16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.

17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of 'recognisability' once again arises.

18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities'.

4

19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. There is nothing foolish or incoherent about this approach. But it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion's communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.

20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralisation but about mutual responsibility. They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions). They remain the only proposals we are likely to see that address some of the risks and confusions already detailed, encouraging us to act and decide in ways that are not simply local.

21. They have been criticised as 'exclusive' in intent. But their aim is not to shut anyone out – rather, in words used last year at the Lambeth Conference, to intensify existing relationships.

22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.

23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.

24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.

25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.

5

26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.

+ Rowan Cantuar:

From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009

July 22, 2009
A Letter to the Clergy

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the Diocese of Dallas,

I write to you in response to the actions of the recent General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim, California. Some in the diocese will be pleased with much that happened, while others will view with alarm some of the resolutions passed.

I feel compelled to speak a word to the Diocese of Dallas concerning three actions in particular. The first two gathered the most press attention and later comment. Members of our Diocese as well as Anglicans throughout the Communion are particularly concerned about these actions, which took the form of resolutions.

The Communion at large has been looking for a clear word from The Episcopal Church as to whether we will continue to honor the moratoria on developing rites for the blessing of same sex unions and consenting to the election to the episcopate of a person living in a same sex relationship. These moratoria were first suggested in the Windsor Report of October 2004 and were occasioned by the consecration of a bishop in The Episcopal Church living in a non-celibate same-sex relationship. A pledge, known as B033, to “exercise restraint” in giving further consents to such persons was adopted by the Convention of 2006. And while the 2006 Convention did not declare a moratorium on blessing rites for same-sex unions, it nevertheless turned away several resolutions calling for development of such rites. The Primates of the Anglican Communion took note of these actions with gratitude at their meeting in 2007 (Dar es Salaam), but requested greater clarity. That clarity would come in 2009.

It is clear from the resolutions passed, as well as from the floor debate in both Houses, that it is the intention of the leadership of The Episcopal Church that the moratoria requested by the Communion are no longer binding. Although a number of commentators, among them bishops, have maintained that the moratoria themselves were not specifically addressed, it is clear that both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops view their previous pledge as cancelled. It was the stated desire of both Bishops and Deputies that this General Convention speak clearly to the Communion concerning “the reality of where this church is.”

Resolution D025 reads (in part): “That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call [gay and lesbian persons in lifelong committed relationships], to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church” and further declares that it is competent to deal with these calls in its own “discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.”

Resolution C056 reads (in part): “That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources, and report to the 77th General Convention”.

While it is true that neither of these resolutions deal explicitly with repudiations of either previous actions of the Convention or of specific requests made of our Church, it is also quite true that their intent is plain. The 2006 resolution had called for restraint on giving consent to the consecration of any bishop “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” That concern is now completely absent in D025, and the only criteria in making such decisions are entirely internal. As for C056, the operative word is “develop.” The plain sense here is to “create,” “produce,” or “promote.”

C056 also resolves that bishops “may provide generous pastoral response” to meet the needs of samesex couples, and this, before providing any theological support for the rites themselves. This appears to give a “green light” to local, unilateral action, and is already being so interpreted by a number of bishops.

Taken together, this is de facto a repudiation of the repeated requests directed to us by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Communion, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is also, I would argue, a repudiation of a previous actions of our own General Convention, in 1991, which mandated a “pan-Anglican” and ecumenical consultation on these matters, because “these potentially divisive issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.” (1991-B020)

Although these resolutions deal specifically with matters concerning same-sex relationships and persons living within them, I want to remind you of the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his paper following our 2006 General Convention (“The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”):

“And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against -- and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.”

There are many gay and lesbian members of our congregations. Some long for the day when the Church will recognize and bless their relationships. Others among them do not. Add to these a number of people who are considering whether they can even remain in The Episcopal Church any longer. Ministry in these circumstances can be agonizing indeed. The churches of the Diocese of Dallas will, I trust, continue to be a place where all are welcome. We all kneel on level ground before the cross of Christ. But the larger question is what it means for “the Church” to make these decisions: is it right or good, or even possible, for a congregation, a diocese, or even a province of the Universal Church to make its own way and claim to give “the Church’s blessing” – or God’s? Discerning the mind of Christ surely must mean doing this together. The Christian faith is something we receive, not legislate. Our own Book of Common Prayer recognizes that “the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. And Holy Scripture commends it to be honored by all people.” (BCP, p. 423)

In the meantime, we need to be clear about where “we are” as a Diocese:

• The Diocese of Dallas will continue to hold up and proclaim the apostles’ teaching that is the ground of Christian fellowship, and the foundational promise of our Baptismal vows.

• We will continue to stand with the larger Church in affirming the primacy of Scripture, the sanctity of marriage and the call to holiness of life.

• We will not consent to the election of a bishop living in a same-sex relationship, and we will no tallow the blessings of same-sex relationships in this diocese.

• We will continue to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, engage in mission at home and abroad, plant new congregations and make disciples of our Lord.

These commitments are in keeping with the historic teaching of the Holy Scriptures as held by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, and, for that matter, the Church throughout the centuries.

I mentioned earlier a third significant resolution passed by the General Convention. Resolution D020 “invites” the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church to study the proposed Anglican Covenant and “to consider the Anglican Covenant proposed draft as a document to inform their understanding of and commitment to our common life in the Anglican Communion.” I commend this study to our churches and I intend to give a prominent place at our Diocesan Convention in October to such a consideration.

Bishop Lambert and I will be conferring with the Standing Committee and the Clergy of this Diocese on these matters. In the meantime, please know that we will continue to stand with the larger Communion and the historic Church in upholding the apostolic faith and fellowship.

It is imperative that we as a Diocese commit ourselves to one another and work together for the building up of God’s kingdom. At no time in the life of this Church has it been so critical for the community to stand together to carry the message of the Good News of Christ to a broken world. We cannot live in isolation from one another but must find ways to work with and support one another in our common mission and ministry. Now is not the time to “run for cover” but to step out in the name of Jesus Christ and continue to worship, work and witness for the glory of God.

+James

[Episcopal News Service -- Anaheim, California] The House of Bishops voted by a margin of 3 to 1 on July 15 "to acknowledge changing circumstances" that call forth a renewed pastoral response from the church for considering same-gender blessings.

That response, at least for the time being, was a substitution for Resolution C056, to create an open process and invite church-wide participation in collecting and developing theological resources and liturgies. The resolution now heads to deputies for approval.

Before a packed gallery of spectators bishops extended debate, proposed numerous amendments and took a 20-minute time-out for private discussion, before adopting the substitute legislation 104-30 with two abstentions.

The measure authorizes bishops, in conjunction with the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (SCLM), to devise an open process, to invite participation and theological reflection, and to report their efforts to the 77th General Convention in 2012 in Indianapolis.

The resolution noted that bishops, "particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church."

Bishop Tom Ely of Vermont told bishops that, after discussions were postponed July 14, he and Bishop Pierre Whalon of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe hosted two indaba-style forums attended by 26 bishops.

"We are grateful for the time we spent in this conversation and urge that similar opportunities be provided at future meetings of the House of Bishops," he added.

The indaba-style gathering was a method of engagement used by bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and was modeled after an African concept of meeting for purposeful discussion.

Ely said the bishops held two sessions, which were "characterized by a deep sense of holy listening, respect, and seeking after a better understanding of our various realities, theologies and ministry contexts. We are grateful for the time we spent in this conversation and urge that similar opportunities be provided at future meetings of the House of Bishops."

The substitute C056 resolution was drafted by a handful of bishops who attended those gatherings. Ely emphasized that it was not a report "nor should it be viewed as a statement of agreement, but rather as a renewed framework for our legislative discussions."

An amendment proposed by Bishop John Howe of Central Florida to delete the final resolve that encouraged "the members of this Church … to engage in this effort" failed by a margin of 57-56. Some bishops attempted unsuccessfully to discharge the resolution. That motion failed by a roll call vote of 94-42.

After the resolution passed, the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity USA, an LGBT advocacy group within the Episcopal community, called the vote "a big step forward on same-sex blessings.

"I trust the process and most of all I trust the Holy Spirit present in the process," she said. "I have seen us do hard things well many times, and I was convinced this would be one of them. I just could not believe that this church isn't bigger and better and stronger than many were giving it credit for. I am delighted to be moving forward."

But most bishops said same-gender blessings are not a foregone conclusion.

Rather, Bishop Neil Alexander of Atlanta, who voted for the legislation, said "the church is very much engaged in this conversation and wants to do the correct and thoughtful and prayerful thing about it? I think that's pretty clear."

Bishop Andy Doyle of Texas, who voted against C056, said the vote "will have an adverse effect on communion relationships" and perhaps in his diocese, "where some people find themselves more in line with a much more conservative [and] what they would call a more orthodox mindset." But he added that the views of everyone within the diocese needed to be honored pastorally and cared for.

He added that: "We are in a process" which can go different ways. "The majority of people here in Anaheim who represent a broad spectrum of the church are very interested in moving forward.

"Nothing we did today actually did anything other than provide for the collection of and design of rites for a conversation. That's very important to understand. We didn't bless or move toward blessings any more than we were."

"What we were doing was taking what was already being done – resources that are already out there, liturgies that are already happening across the country – and collecting them so we could discuss what this is. No permissions were given today. That doesn't mean that the perception of the greater communion won't be that permission was given, or that people in my own diocese won't perceive that permission was given. But we didn't authorize anything other than the collection of material."

Bishop Jeffrey Lee of Chicago, who voted for C056 and was part of the informal indaba group, said "there's a lot of ground between here and there" or blessing same-gender relationships.

He said "it doesn't really change from a previous General Convention resolution in 2003 that recognizes congregations are operating within the bonds of our common life by responding with a wide range of pastoral responses to the needs of the members of the church."

-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is Episcopal News Service Province VIII and the House of Bishops and the Rev. Jerald Hyche is associate rector St. Martins in Houston, Texas.

 The House of Deputies consented to this resolution and agreed with the House of Bishops on the last day of convention on Friday, July 17th.  The Episcopal Church will now gather resources for same-sex liturgical rites and blessings.

The following has been just released relating to action taken in Anaheim at convention, as this resolution, D-025, overturns B-033 that was passed in 2006 in Columbus which said that a moratorium to ask the Episcopal Church to cease blessing same-sex blessings and not to approve another candidate for the Episcopate (Office of Bishop) that was of an alternate lifestyle.

Bishop N.T. Wright of the Church of England and world famous author said this about the new resolution passed at this General Convention:

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Episcopal News Service -- Anaheim, California.  After more than two hours of discussion and with a standing-room-only crowd watching, the House of Bishops on July 13 adopted an amended version of Resolution D025, which affirms the openness of "any ordained ministry" to gay and lesbian people.

The Rector, Wardens and Vestry unanimously established a Fund to assist the Penley's during this time of loss and transition.  Checks can be made out to the church with "Penley Fund" in the memo section.  Please pray for the Penley family during this difficult time.

ACI Statement on the Anglican Consultative Council

The Anglican Communion Institute

Friday’s session of the Anglican Consultative Council is an embarrassment to Anglicans everywhere, and a sad display of procedural confusion. Members were given complex resolutions right before the vote without sufficient time to study them and understand their consequences.  Resolutions that had been distributed earlier were replaced by resolutions drafted by a committee largely composed of members from provinces known to be opposed to the Ridley Cambridge Draft.  Before a vote could even be taken on these resolutions, however, Archbishop Aspinall introduced a third resolution that not even the chairman of the resolutions committee had seen.  The proponents of these resolutions, the intent of which was to remove Section IV and so significantly alter the Ridley Cambridge Draft, could not describe them to the members in a coherent way even though their first language was English, unlike many of those voting.  All three resolutions were being debated at the same time. In consultation with various members present, there is agreement that this was improper.

The first motion to remove Section 4 for review and so alter the Covenant was defeated overwhelmingly by the members of the ACC.  But the proponents of delay and alteration attempted yet again to insert the main provisions of the resolution just defeated into the resolution then under consideration.  This attempt was rightly ruled out of order by the chair, Bishop Paterson of New Zealand, himself sympathetic to the leadership of TEC.  For reasons that are unclear, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had himself called for a vote on Resolution A, personally challenged this ruling of the chair and it was reversed.  (It has been suggested that delegates voted against Resolution A because they had an interest in other resolutions. But that should never have been the condition under which voting was taking place, and it requires that 15 of the votes were cast because of this in order actually to approve Resolution A – a matter we cannot ever know because it is pure conjecture. This puts a cloud over the entire logic of voting as such and would clearly suggest the need for a re-vote, not a moving ahead with new resolutions).

The amendment to the resolution then pending, adding back provisions of the prior failed resolution, was eventually passed by a very narrow margin.  In putting this amendment to the members for a vote, not even the Chairman could describe it coherently:

“The question is whether or not for the introduction … for the amendment or against the amendment, with the introduction of those two clauses, and the subsequent renumbering from 15 to 16.”

Evidence indicates that members did not understand what they were voting on, what the Archbishop of Canterbury was proposing, or why he was proposing it.

After a break and amid much confusion, the Chairman then announced that the entire resolution had passed even though there is no evidence it had even been voted on, the previous votes having been to amend the resolution, not pass it.  If the position is that the individual clauses were enacted separately, is there any evidence that this was understood by the members prior to the vote?

These events unfolded live on Anglican TV to people watching around the world.  It is beyond question that these procedures were improper, confusing and manipulative.  The credibility of the ACC, already questioned by the Communion’s own advisory groups, has suffered lasting damage.

Two actions are required as a matter of urgency:

This issue must be re-visited immediately by the ACC and voted upon in a lawful and proper manner during this meeting. The alternative is moving forward with lasting questions as to the legitimacy of the entire process. Is this in doubt?

An explanation must be offered by those in charge of these proceedings, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chairman of the ACC, as to how such manifestly improper procedures were permitted to unfold from the outset of Friday’s session and, indeed, of ACC-14 itself. It appears to us that things descended into chaos and no one stopped and sought to bring things to order.

If lawful and proper action on the covenant is not forthcoming from this meeting of the Council, the only appropriate response is for the Churches of the Communion to begin themselves the process of adopting the Ridley Cambridge Text.

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner
Mark McCall

Both Bishops of the Diocese of Dallas; Bishop Stanton and Bishop Lambert, have signed on to a recent statement of Bishops on the polity of the Episcopal Church.  It may be read here.

The Thursday Evening Bible Study will NOT be meeting until September as we will be taking from now throughout the summer off and will reorganize when school resumes.

 The Rose Sunday Concert Series was proud to present and offer John Rutter's Requiem on Rose Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 3 p.m. in the nave of the church.  The adult choir worked very hard in their preparation including a variety of instrumentalists; harp, flute, oboe, cello, timpani, glockenspiel, and pipe organ that joined them that afternoon.  A brief reception followed in the parish hall.  You may listen to the audio by clicking here.

On January 14, 2009, Suffragan Bishop Paul Lambert blessed and dedicated the new parish offices following Solemn Choral Evensong.  A delicious reception was offered in the parish hall following the liturgies.  Preacher for the evening was Canon Edward R. Monk, SSC, Rector of Saint John's Church in Corsicana, Texas.  The adult choir, as usual out did themselves once again as they offered their various gifts and talents along with Keith Johnson on trumpet.  A prayer/meditation garden is being planned to the east of the new offices with a conceptual drawing that was made public on the evening of the blessing.

Archbishop of Canterbury's New Year Message

It's always a relief to have a bit of space after the busyness of Christmas to relax at home and mull over the past 12 months and the hopes and possibilities of the year ahead. The prospect of this coming year, though, is one that produces a lot of anxiety and insecurity for countless people. There are fears about disappearing savings, lost jobs, house repossessions and worse. While the headlines are often about the big figures, it's the human cost that makes it real for us.

A little before Christmas I visited a new academy in Scunthorpe named after St. Lawrence. Lawrence was a Christian minister in Rome in the days when you could be arrested and executed for being a Christian, nineteen hundred years ago or so.

When he was arrested, he was told to collect all the treasures of the Church to be given up to the courts. He got together all the homeless, the orphans and the hungry that the Church looked after in the city, and presented them to his judges, saying, 'These are the Church's treasures.'

Like any really good school, St. Lawrence's treats its children as treasures. In the last few months we've had to think a lot about wealth and security and about where our 'treasure' is.

But it set me thinking - what would our life be like if we really believed that our wealth, our treasure, was our fellow-human beings? Religious faith points to a God who takes most seriously and values most extravagantly the people who often look least productive or successful- as if none of us could really be said to be doing well unless these people were secure.

And as we look around in our own country as well as worldwide, this should trigger some hard questions – whether we think of child soldiers in Africa or street children in Latin America, or of children in our midst here who are damaged by poverty, family instability and abuse, street violence and so much else. Children need to be taken seriously, not just as tomorrow's adults but as fellow-inhabitants of the globe today, growing human beings whom we approach with respect and patience and from whom we ought to learn.

One of the most damning things you could say about any society is that it's failing its children. That's why I was really encouraged recently to be invited to open a project in Springfield in Birmingham - a church-based initiative supporting children and their parents from across the whole community. Here the church community took the brave decision to open up their church building for work with local families and to seek funding for further buildings and resources from the local authority. What's more, they've worked throughout in close collaboration with the local mosque and have a joint program with them for young people. There's a community with its eye unmistakably on its real treasure.

So what about a New Year in which we try and ask consistently about our own personal decisions and about public polices, national and international, 'Does this feel like something that looks after our real treasure, something that keeps our real wealth safe - the lives and welfare of the youngest and most vulnerable?'

Jesus said where our treasure is, that's where our hearts will be. Our hearts will be in a very bad way if they're focused only on the state of our finances. They'll be healthy if they are capable of turning outwards, looking at the real treasure that is our fellow human beings. A very happy and blessed New Year to you.

A preliminary date of dedication and blessing with Suffragan Bishop Paul Lambert, has been set for Wednesday, January 14, 2009, beginning at 6:30 p.m. with Solemn Choral Evensong in the nave of the church.  A reception is being planned following the liturgy.