Church of the Word
STATEMENT BY REV PHIL ASHLEY

Statement by Rev. Phil Ashey to the Standing Committee of VA/ECUSA
St. George’s, Fredericksburg
Tuesday November 29, 2005

Opening Prayer

Opening Statement: Why I am here?
(1) The issue is the authority of Holy Scripture: A vivid reminder in today’s Reading from the Daily Lectionary, Year Two: 2 Peter 1:12-21 (I read esp. vv. 16, 18 and 20-21 on the authority and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture)

This is the way I have always understood the issue…Because the actions of GC2003 clearly contradict the teaching and authority of Holy Scripture on the matter of marriage, holiness of life, and qualifications for church leadership. And in the words of both the Windsor Report and Bishop NT Wright: the issue of consecrating a non-celibate homosexual to church leadership and approving rites for the blessing of same sex unions is NOT “adiaphora”:

It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado. Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated… In the letters already quoted, Paul is quite clear that there are several matters - obvious examples being incest (1 Corinthians 5) and lawsuits between Christians before non-Christian courts (1 Corinthians 6) - in which there is no question of saying “some Christians think this, other Christians think that, and you must learn to live with the difference”. On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God’s coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated within the Church. (sections 87-96)

And as Bishop NT Wright noted in his address to the General Synod of the CofE in February of this year:

“The situation is indeed new. We have not been this way before; and the Lambeth Commission was challenged to map out, cautiously, the new territory we have entered. Never before in the Anglican Communion has there been a moment when, after each of the four so-called Instruments of Unity have advised against a particular action, a Province or a Diocese has gone ahead with it unilaterally”
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/docs/2005/200502wright.cfm

(2) as a courtesy to you and the request in your November 21 letter to me to discuss my letter of resignation to Bishop Jones and my letter of transfer to the Diocese of Ruwenzori. I will therefore limit my comments to the reasons for these letters, and the facts that support them.

Let me take this moment also to reaffirm that I am now under the Ecclesiastical Authority of Uganda, neither you nor Bishop Lee have any authority to discipline me;

(3) to respectfully suggest a course of action that will not further tear the fabric of our Anglican Communion as you consider how to respond to my transfer.

The Facts/Chronology of events leading to my transfer to Uganda

1. Response to GC2003 the Sunday following: “Whose Word can we trust?” the first, and last, time I addressed this issue directly from the pulpit. (find it on our website at www.southridingchurch.org)

2. Meeting the outrage and conscientious objections of our parishioners, who did not wish to have their tithes pass through to the Diocese… Our letter to Bishop Lee dated January 16, 2004.

3. Copied to Bishop Jones, who responded with distress…we reconsidered and upped giving to 10% unrestricted.

4. Having tried faithfully to follow Bishop Jones counsel to church planters to simply do our Gospel work, and to try and ignore the disarray in ECUSA, I was shocked and dismayed by the action of some clergy in Region 13 sponsoring a resolution at Virginia Annual Council 2004 to “discipline” members of the AAC. I am known to the clergy in region 13 as a member of the AAC, and our website at that time indicated we had signed the AAC parish covenant. I was never notified, or asked to address the concerns of this resolution… Lesson learned: I cannot simply labor in the vineyard and hope for the best… I must guard my back against church discipline for simply upholding the faith once delivered, and the foundations of Anglicanism—including the authority of Scripture.

5. I was the Architect of Budget Resolution 001 at Annual Council 2004 to approve redirected giving as a faithful exercise in conscientious objection… Again, I was encouraged by others to engage the system and work from within… When told by Russ Randle that I was being asked by the Bishops to remove myself from the process—even if only for tactical reasons— I realized that I had become so marginalized that I was no longer welcome to participate in any meaningful way in the Councils of this Diocese.

6. At a subsequent meeting of Clericus in Region 13 after I shared my feelings about the resolution on “disciplining AAC members”, and sharing my journey within ECUSA, I was asked “Why don’t you just leave?” I took that to heart in prayer to the Lord…His answer to me: “don’t leave the ministry, and don’t leave the Anglican communion.”

7. SOMA Mission to Kenya, on the way back I initiated a meeting with ABP Orombi to discuss the possibility of transfer and sanctuary. No commitments made, only the charge to pray about it.

8. Visit by Bishop Kisembo to churches in NoVa under auspices of SOMA. I initiated discussion of whether Ruwenzori might be a sanctuary. Again, no commitments, only the encouragement to pray and discern.

9. February 2005 meeting with Bishop Jones to discuss his visitation to SRC. After delivering graphs and statistics of growth in attendance and giving, when asked by Bishop Jones how leadership was feeling about ECUSA, I indicated they were deeply concerned. He insisted on meeting with them. I informed him, based on discussions I had had with launch team, and their knowledge of the lawsuits in Diocese of Los Angeles, that they would not meet with him because of the chilling effect these lawsuits had on exercise of First Amendment rights, and because they did not wish to be potential targets of similar litigation.

Bishop Jones immediately threatened to dissolve SRC and to dissolve the leadership team. For the next 90 minutes we reviewed DioVa Canons 9 and 10 to understand what he could and could not do, and pointed out that even if Region 13 gave the consents to SRC under Canon 9, our launch team as a vestry committee would never sign the oath of loyalty mandated by Canon 10 because they believed that the doctrine, discipline and worship of ECUSA in the Dio VA, per votes at GC2003, was now in violation of the teaching of the Anglican Communion as received in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998). Bishop Jones retracted his threats and asked if he might meet with our leadership team within 6 months of his visit. I agreed to pass on that request.

10. Referred Standing Committee to our Letter of July 12, 2005 to Bishop Jones summarizing our concerns and questions for the meeting… Here are the pertinent excerpts:

Dear Bishop Jones,

I am writing both to request your guidance with respect to matters of great urgency within the Anglican Communion and to respond to your request to meet with the leadership team at South Riding Church. Bishop, you and I have known each other for several years. You have also been closely involved in the birth of South Riding Church. This is why we are looking to you to address the wrenching questions our leadership team has in this critical time.

In light of the Windsor Report and recent events at Dromantine and Nottingham, those in leadership at South Riding Church recognize that a division is occurring between the worldwide Anglican Church and ECUSA. This division has placed many in our congregation, especially those who are most involved in mission, in a difficult position. Although they feel an affinity for the Episcopal Church, they feel a greater affinity for the Anglican Church worldwide.

The division has come about as a consequence of the decisions of General Convention 2003 to elevate an avowed and practicing homosexual to Episcopal leadership within the Church, and to recognize same sex blessings per resolution CO51. Bishop Lee and the majority of the Virginia delegation supported these decisions. And up to this very moment, the Presiding Bishop and ECUSA’s official delegation to the ACC have made it unambiguously clear that ECUSA will not turn back from the decisions of GC2003. This letter in particular is the result of recent meetings of the South Riding Church leadership team.

The crux of our grief is this: the decisions of ECUSA leaders, including Bishop Lee, are contrary to the Bible and, we believe, place the authority of humans and culture over God’s word and authority. The majority in the Anglican Communion have, again, reiterated the authority of Holy Scripture, God’s Word, over human authority and culture in the latest reaffirmation of Lambeth 1.10 (1998) by the ACC at Nottingham. That many in our own Virginia Diocesan Council were permitted to describe this settled teaching as “hate language”, without any admonition, is a breach of Communion-wide teaching that the ACC resolved should “command respect” among all Anglicans.

As you know, I have communicated your request to meet with the leadership team of South Riding Church. Several of our leaders have expressed a willingness to sit down and listen to what you would like to say to them. The next step would be to find a time and place that is mutually convenient for this gathering. As our folks generally have long commutes into and around DC, evenings and weekends would be best for them.

In addition, they would like to discuss some of their own questions with you. Here are some of the questions that were presented to me when your request for a meeting was communicated:

• During the Diocese of Virginia community meetings, you strongly supported Bishop Lee’s votes at GC2003, and in particular his sponsorship of C051. What is your position on the decisions at GC2003 that are dividing the Anglican Communion?

• What is your response to the recent reiteration at the June meeting in Nottingham of the continuing vitality of the Anglican Communion’s teaching on human sexuality in Lambeth 1.10 (1998), and the decision of the Nottingham delegates to effectively suspend ECUSA from further participation in the ACC?

• If ECUSA chooses to “walk apart” at GC2006 by failing to renew or extend the moratorium on same sex blessings and consecrations of actively practicing homosexuals, what will Bishop Lee do? What will the Diocese of Virginia do? What will you do?

• In light of the decision by some Bishops to continue permitting same sex blessings in their Diocese and the HOB’s decision to observe a moratorium on official rites of same-sex blessings, only until GC2006, have you reconsidered your support of C051 as you expressed it in the Virginia community meetings?

• Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God and the authoritative basis for Christian theology and practice?

• Do you believe there is any reasonable basis in the Bible for ordaining practicing homosexuals to positions of leadership in the church and blessing same sex-unions? If so, would you explain it. If not, are the decisions of ECUSA leaders contrary to the Bible?

• Are you aware that many Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and the ultimate authoritative basis for Christian theology and practice cannot and will not support decisions of ECUSA leaders that are contrary to God’s Word? Do you realize that this is a matter of conscience and faithfulness to the ultimate source of our faith— and not a matter of difference on sexuality or church governance?

• Are you aware of the coercive actions of ECUSA leaders in the Dioceses of Los Angeles and Connecticut, among others, against the simple exercise of free speech and conscience apart from property issues—including redirected giving? Do you believe the Diocese of Virginia will move to adopt similar measures?

• Will the Diocese of Virginia provide lay leaders of orthodox, Lambeth 1.10 and Anglican Communion affirming Virginia congregations written assurances that they will not face legal action due to their conscience based involvement in the issue of realignment?

• Is there any possibility that Bishop Lee will go beyond his expression of regret to repentance for his decision to support the consecration of an actively practicing homosexual as Bishop? If so, when and how?

I realize this is a somewhat daunting list of questions. However, they reflect the deep grief and concern felt by those who have poured their lives into the birth and growth of South Riding Church. If you have any questions about these questions, please let me know. I will do whatever I can to help facilitate this meeting.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. J. Philip Ashey
South Riding Church

11. Meeting with Bishop Jones September 7 in South Riding. He tried to answer the questions, but confessed his inability to address them to our satisfaction. Bottom line: “Please ignore the internet, please stop reading Titusonenine, please stop reading the newspaper accounts, please ignore the HOB, please ignore the national leadership of ECUSA, please do your Gospel work here in SR, and in 15 years when my generation of leaders have either retired or died, you can take your place.” Immediate and subsequent response of our leadership team: disbelief and resolve to leave.

12. E-mailed Bishop Kisembo to ask for transfer, and gave reasons. He agreed in principle. Held congregational vote on Sunday November 13. Vote was 57-11 (9/11 indicating wish to remain). Bishop Kisembo contacted and faxed letter receiving me.

13. Meeting with Bishop Jones Monday November 14 and delivery of letter of resignation.

Questions from the Standing Committee: NONE.

Closing Statement

• I am canonically resident in Ruwenzori, under the Ecclesiastical Authority of Bishop Kisembo, in the Anglican Church of Uganda As of November 13, 2005, I am no longer under your jurisdiction and I reiterate that neither you nor Bishop Lee have authority to discipline me.

• I am here today as a courtesy to you, and in deep grief over the necessity of this decision….not undertaken lightly or impulsively, after my family’s 150 years of uninterrupted service to ECUSA over three generations.

• In conclusion in regard to the issue of Holy Scripture, please remember: First, Richard Hooker never spoke about a stool with three legs. The correct quote is: "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth" (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Vol. 5).

• It ought to get our curiosity up that Hooker not only doesn't use the image of the stool, but when he discusses the threesome at all it is in a different order than nearly all of those who claim the existence of such a stool. The “Reason” he refers to is not either the enlightenment or post-modern understanding…What Hooker was referring to is reason as classically stated by Augustine and Anselm, “Faith seeking understanding”, that comes from hearts that are keen to obey God’s Word first!

• Note also this section of the Windsor Report "Within Anglicanism, scripture has always been recognised as the Church's supreme authority, and as such ought to be seen as a focus and means of unity."--section b, para 53

• Why I cannot sign Canon 13 renunciation at this time: (1) advice from my Bishops of Uganda not available, and (2) unknown pass through impact on validity of my orders as a priest, at a time when I am feeling called more than ever to ordained ministry.

• I respectfully suggest a course of action that will not further tear the fabric of our Anglican Communion as you consider how to respond to my transfer…A “Third Way” if you will…I speak to you now as an “outsider”, a Ugandan Anglican, suggesting how you should fulfill your canonical responsibilities under ECUSA—so take my advice or leave it… Rather than exercising Canons 13 or 4.10, simply recognize my transfer, remove my name from the rolls of the clergy in the Diocese of VA, and refuse to license me to officiate in any ECUSA church. I would certainly respect and understand the exercise of such church order.

• I spoke with Peter Lee today and he rejected that option. Please bear in mind that the Mind of the House of Bishops resolution does not have Canonical weight, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury has just licensed Sandy Millar to be a Ugandan Bishop operating within the jurisdiction of the CofE… So flexibility is possible within the Anglican Communion.

• There is still a door left open, slightly, between the Diocese of VA and the Anglican Church of Uganda—as both are still in communion with Canterbury. By exercising Canon 4.10 you will declare, de facto, that you are no longer in communion with the Anglican Church of Uganda. YOU will close that door. Please do not close the door, and tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion any further.