Several Episcopal bishops who have read the draft said they are not entirely happy with it.

“There are several things in there that will be hard to swallow,” said Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington. “The references to Gene (Robinson), the moratoria and the pastoral forum.”

Bishop James Mathes of San Diego said the proposal for a pastoral forum would confuse rather than clarify disputes within provinces and dioceses.

Bishop Hector Monterroso of the Diocese of Costa Rica, Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America, said the reflections have missed “a good opportunity for gay people to feel better in God’s mission in the church.”

Monterroso disputed a paragraph (104) in the document that says that in some places in the United States, Canada and England the inclusion of gays and lesbians had been good for the church. “Not only there, but in Latin America,” he said.

“In our province we need to focus on other kinds of important issues like evangelism, work with poor people and the immigrants,” he added “That kind of thing here is not the emphasis.

Like Monterroso, Bishop Bruce Caldwell of Wyoming took comfort in the “unofficial” status of the reflections.

“It is just a record of conversations,” Caldwell said. “If it were a definitive document, we would have done it in a different way.”

Read it all and our thanks to Cafe for these kinds of specifics which are so helpful for those of us seeking to follow Lambeth who are not there (is anyone else out there getting tired of generalizations?–KSH).

What might be wrong with our polity? It looks to me as though the Episcopal Church (on both “sides”) tends to regard bishops as though they were state governors ”” “our elected officials.” That neglects the two aspects of a bishop’s vocation that look most important to me: the bishop’s role as a teacher, and the bishop’s role as the point where the local church (the diocese) interacts with the church catholic. On that basis, churches in Iran really do have a stake in whom the Diocese of Chicago elects as bishop; a bishop who can’t function as a liaison (either because the world refuses them, or their home diocese does) can’t fulfill a constitutive aspect of the bishop’s role. The Episcopal Church tacitly recognizes this through its assent process, and (ironically) just exercised the prerogative to not accept a bishop’s election on the grounds that not enough dioceses felt they could rely on that candidate to remain within the Episcopal Church [a reference to the first election in South Carolina of Mark Lawrence]. Though we do not ask every diocese around the globe to consent to each episcopal election, the principle is the same: A bishop belongs both to the diocese and to the church catholic, and both need to accept the bishop in order to maintain sound polity.

So when the House of Bishops asserts that “the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church,” or that we have no intention of leaving the Anglican Communion but that our polity does not permit arrangements such as the Primates requested, they’re begging the question. It’s the polity itself that has come into focus as the problem. The Primates want a polity in which our bishops stand more fully accountable to the world church, because (on this interpretation) that’s part of their job description; and the Episcopal Church says, “You can’t exclude us because that’s not the way we do things.” The US position looks an awful lot like an assimilation of ecclesiastical roles to local civic models: the U.S. bishops should lobby on behalf of the citizens they represent to bring home favorable policies (and if the governors of Utah and Mississippi, even the President of the U.S., don’t like the governor of Iowa, it’s tough luck because the Iowans voted for her). That’s not my understanding of how the members of the Body of Christ work together to build up and strengthen the whole.

—AKMA

At lunch break for the bishops on Thursday, there was a gay demonstration on the lawns outside the big blue tent and their closest lunch cafeteria. Gene was there at the beginning, but when they started kissing and acting out, he left. So did the bishops, hurrying their wives away.

They let you know they are from America and share almost unparalleled freedom to be gay. New protections in England mean their activities cannot be restrained. They let you know that by most standards, they are wealthy. They are staying in hotels and rented houses, not dorms. It is also clear that countries that repress homosexual activity, especially Moslem countries, are uneducated, unsophisticated and barbaric. They assure you that homosexuality is coming to all of these countries within the next decade.

So, what is the result? I believe the homosexual activists here have had a profound effect on the conference. Bishops and their wives who are not normally exposed to gay behavior have been offended by these antics. They uniformly complain about being shouted at when they wear purple shirts by gays who want to chat. If they do stop, the insistence is that homosexuality is an inborn trait, genetically controlled. Although that may be the present view in the US, it is far from an agreed upon norm in most other countries. Bishops have expressed disdain for the gay daily newspaper, which is at the door of every building on campus. There is avoidance of the gay fringe events and self-select groups (actually, there is avoidance of most fringe events as that is the only free time of the day.)

Every bishop I have spoken with, who is not from the USA, says that departure from the norm, or new development of the faith is not the issue here. The issue is the Scriptural teaching that Christians do no indulge in the culture, but live apart from it. Homosexual orientation or proclivity does not require indulgence. We are called to chastity, higher standards in moral and ethical teachings and encouraged to live holy lives. This applies equally to men and women of any persuasion. The Biblical and Christian norm is for sex to be confined within the boundary of the marriage of a man and a woman ”“ there perfect freedom is found.

Read it all.

I will consider posting comments on this article submitted first by email to Kendall’s E-mail: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

Over breakfast, Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Church of the Southern Cone, apologized for not contacting me before making incursions into the Diocese of San Diego. Over the past two years, Bishop Venables together with Bishop Frank Lyons of the same province, have made numerous episcopal visits to our diocese without my knowledge or consent. I was heartened by his apology and relieved to hear him say he had not received either of the two letters I had sent protesting these actions and outlining the harm they caused to the church here in San Diego. Previously, I had taken his silence to mean his actions were intentional.

In light of these new developments, I have proposed that we continue discussing how to mend the tear these incursions have caused in our diocese. I am in preliminary conversations with Richard Blackburn of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center as a possible mediator for these discussions. I’m delighted to say that Bishop Venables has agreed to consider such a plan and we will be meeting for breakfast tomorrow to discuss it further.

Read it all.

TWO CHURCH of Ireland bishops with contrasting views on gay bishops and same-sex blessings have spoken of their optimism as the Lambeth Conference 2008 of the worldwide Anglican community nears its Sunday finish.

Bishop Ken Good of Derry and Raphoe said yesterday he was “quite hopeful” on the conference outcome, and that discussion on the role of the bishop and the mission of the church had been well summarised, but he felt that yesterday the conference was approaching its decisive moment.

The theme for discussion at 15 discussion groups, involving approximately 40 bishops in each, was Listening to God and Each Other: The Bishop and Human Sexuality.

Dr Good felt the diocese of New Hampshire in the US went “too far too soon” in ordaining Gene Robinson as its bishop in 2003.

He believed this was wrong both biblically and strategically, as well as where timing was concerned.

The Bishop of Cork, Dr Paul Colton, said that he too was optimistic where the outcome of the conference was concerned – “as long as someone doesn’t collapse the scrum of process”.

Read it all.

(ACNS) What is Lambeth ’08 going to say?’ is the question looming larger all the time as this final week unfolds. But before trying out any thoughts on that, I want to touch on the prior question, a question that could be expressed as ”˜Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?’. I believe if we can answer that adequately, we shall have laid some firm foundations for whatever content there will be.

And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre. I don’t mean speaking from the middle point between two extremes – that just creates another sort of political alignment. I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.

We are here at all, surely, because we believe there is an Anglican identity and that it’s worth investing our time and energy in it. I hope that some of the experience of this Conference will have reinforced that sense. And I hope too that we all acknowledge that the only responsible and Christian way of going on engaging with those who aren’t here is by speaking from that centre in Jesus Christ where we all see our lives held and focused.

And, as I suggested in my opening address, speaking from the centre requires habits and practices and disciplines that make some demands upon everyone – not because something alien is being imposed, but because we know we shall only keep ourselves focused on the centre by attention and respect for each other – checking the natural instinct on all sides to cling to one dimension of the truth revealed. I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church. While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice – about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material.

Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly. But the key points are confidence and authority. If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.

Some have expressed unhappiness about the ”˜legalism’ implied in a covenant. But we should be clear that good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance. Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity – indeed, ”˜generous love’, to borrow the title of the excellent document on Inter-Faith issues which was discussed yesterday. And we might recall that powerful formulation from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks – ”˜Covenant is the redemption of solitude’.

Mutual generosity : part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs. The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this – so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born. It is by no means a full agreement, but it will, I hope, have strengthened the sense that we have at least a common language, born out of the conviction that Jesus Christ remains the one unique centre.

And within that conviction, what has been heard? I want now to engage in what might be a rather presumptuous exercise – and certainly feels like a risky one. I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together. I want to imagine what the main messages would be, within an atmosphere of patience and charity, from those in our Communion who hold to a clear and traditional doctrinal and moral conviction, and also from those who, starting from the same centre, find fewer problems or none with some recent innovations. Although these voices are inevitably rooted in the experience of the developing world and of North America, the division runs through many other provinces internally as well.

So first : what might the traditional believer hope others have heard? ”˜What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us – Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives – so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways. We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle. We seek to love them – and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it : but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge. Isn’t it like the dilemma of the early Church – welcoming soldiers, yet seeking to get them to lay down their arms?

”˜But please remember also that – while you may say that what you do needn’t affect us – your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility. Imagine what that means where those neighbours are passionately traditional Christians – and what it means for our own members, who will be drawn to leave us for a “safer”, more orthodox church. Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ”˜gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.

”˜Don’t misunderstand us. We’re not looking for safety and comfort. Some of us know quite a lot about carrying the cross. But when that cross is laid on us by fellow-Christians, it’s quite a lot harder to bear. Don’t be too surprised if some of us want to be at a distance from you – or if we want to support minorities in your midst who seem to us to be suffering.

”˜But we are here. We’ve taken a risk in coming, because many who think like us feel we’ve betrayed them just by meeting you. But we value our Communion, we want to understand you and we want you to understand us. Can you find some way of being generous that helps us believe you care about us and about the common language and belief of the Church? Can you – in plain words – step back and let us think and pray about these things without giving us the impression that the debate is over and we’ve lost and that doesn’t matter to you?’

And then : what might the not so traditional believer hope has been heard?

”˜What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition. We know we’re pushing the boundaries – but don’t some Christians always have to do that? Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?

”˜We are often hurt, angry and bewildered at the way many others in the Communion see us and treat us these days – as if we were spiritual lepers or traitors to every aspect of Christian belief. We know that no-one is the best judge in their own case, but we see in our church life at least some marks of the Spirit’s gifts. And part of that is acknowledging the gifts we’ve seen in gay and lesbian believers. They will certainly be likely to feel that the restraint you ask for is a betrayal. Please try to see why this is such a dilemma for many of us. You may not see it, but they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence. And we have to say to some of you that we long for you to speak up for your gay and lesbian neighbours in situations where they are subject to appalling discrimination. There have been Lambeth Resolutions about that too, remember.

”˜A lot of the time, we feel we’re being made scapegoats. Other provinces have acute moral and disciplinary problems, or else they more or less successfully refuse to admit the realities in their midst. But those of us who have faced the complex issues around gay relationships in what we feel to be an open and prayerful way are stigmatised and demonised.

”˜Not all of us, of course, supported or took part in the actions that have caused so much trouble. Some of us remain strongly opposed, many of us want to find ways of strengthening our bonds with you. But even those who don’t stand with the majority on innovations will often feel that the life of a whole church, a life that is varied and complex but often deeply and creatively faithful to Christ and the Scriptures, is being wrongly and unjustly seen by you and some of your friends.

”˜We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share. Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’

Two sets of feelings and perceptions, two appeals for generosity. For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation. But there is the challenge. If both were able to hear and to respond generously, perhaps we could have something more like a conversation of equals – even something more like a Church.

At Dar-es-Salaam, the primates tried to find a way of inviting different groups to take a step forward simultaneously towards each other. It didn’t happen, and each group was content to blame the other. But the last 18 months don’t suggest that this was a good outcome. Can this Conference now put the same kind of challenge? To the innovator, can we say, ”˜Don’t isolate yourself; don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow’? Can we say to the traditionalist, ”˜Don’t invest everything in a church of pure and likeminded souls; try to understand the pastoral and human and theological issues that are urgent for those you are opposing, even if you think them deeply wrong’?

I think we perhaps can, if and only if we are captured by the vision of the true Centre, the heart of God out of which flows the impulse of an eternal generosity which creates and heals and promises. It is this generosity which sustains our mission and service in Our Lord’s name. And it is this we are called to show to each other.

At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life. What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians. The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness. We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be – a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration. But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question : ”˜Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

Talk about relevant–it helps to laugh (hat tip: JS).

I read and study my bible habitually, prayerfully and hard, learning both from the insights the Holy Spirit provides me and from the long tradition of piety and scholarship within which I am continually formed and reformed. My personal conclusion is that what St Paul and the Old Testament are condemning are not faithful, loving and stable same sex relationships as we see them today but rather matters of cultic sex, sex as the expression of a particular power relationship, and promiscuity. The other main argument, that God didn’t create Adam and Adam, collapses into a narrow form of Thomism (in which every “thing” can have only one good and natural purpose) that is explicitly rejected in the Prayer Book (and its revisions) marriage service and therefore cannot be claimed as Anglican.

Nonetheless, if I ever thought this issue could be “adiaphora” (something a local church can determine without needing to heed others) I no longer do. The consecration of a bishop in an active same sex relationship has certainly helped some Christians in North America to feel more fully accepted by the church, official liturgies and blessings for such partnerships have done the same for the couples involved and their friends. But the price is being paid elsewhere, particularly in places where Christians are on the defensive or in a minority in relation to Islam, and are often seen as slack on topics such as the consumption of alcohol. In countries like these male homosexual activities are often still criminal. There is no way they can tackle these issues at present in their contexts nor could they defend themselves by saying that “it’s not us, it’s just the Americans”. Indeed the very fact that it is the USA (in many parts of the world I doubt Canada is adequately distinguished) leading that plays into the anti-imperialism and hatred of America that is so strong across the globe. Invasion by American cultural values is no more popular than invasion by its troops.

As a C of E bishop I recognise that were I to insist on carrying out the consequences of my own views on this subject rather than upholding what Synod and the House of Bishops have agreed then I would have to resign. But my Anglican ecclesiology and catholic spirituality teach me to be obedient to the collegial will, properly expressed, not least because I might well be wrong. Equally, I believe that any individual church that claims to be Anglican needs to have a polity which gives full weight to the whole communion. It’s here where I find I am looking over the next few days to my American brothers and sisters for reassurance.

Read it all.

Another perspective on today’s developments.

Follow along closely.

Nobody, not even Professor Ian Douglas of the Lambeth Design Group, can say what’s going to happen this week. Rumours abound and red herrings come and go. There has been one hearing of the Windsor Continuation Group and two presentations. The hearing on part C is scheduled for Monday afternoon.

The indabas get to grips with the Covenant, the ongoing Windsor processes and Communion matters in general on Friday and Saturday. All are feeding back into the final Reflections document which the Archbishop of Canterbury will present at the conclusion of the Conference. Self-select sessions are continuing to run on related matters.

Any kind of substantial recommendation about ecclesiastical structures and processes would have to be done through the provinces and the ACC. Ian Douglas describes both Windsor and the accompanying Covenant processes as separate strands weaving into the Lambeth programme. Bishops present can share their mind on the Covenant: all bishops, including absentees, will complete a questionnaire. All provinces will be invited to respond again at the end of this year; round three begins in early 2009, with a third draft taken to the ACC meeting in Jamaica in May.

Read it all. I agree emphatically with that first line. Yesterday in the parish where I serve I was asked constantly about what is really happening at Lambeth 2008 and I said no one–not even those who are there–really knows. All you can do is get glimpses. This is a time for perserverance, patience and prayer–KSH.

This [statement by the Episcopal Church of Sudan] is troubling stuff, especially when taken together with the GAFCON verdict that the latest draft of the Anglican Covenant falls far short of anything that the conservatives could work with. If there were any doubt in the bishops’ minds about what was expected of them at Lambeth, it ought to have evaporated by now. They have two more weeks to find a formula that might give the waiting Communion some hope. This is more than an affirmation of the Covenant, though that may be part of the solution. What has to be demonstrated is that the different factions are prepared to work together. Archbishop Deng seemed to suggest that the reason for the Sudanese presence at the Lambeth Conference was merely to express its will. Having done so, however, he must be active in finding a way forward. The Communion contains views other than his own, as he must know.

Read it all. This editorial falls far short–as is alas becoming all too common with this publication–of seeing a way for Lambeth 2008 to make any kind of meaningful contribution toward enabling the current huge mess in the Anglican Communion to become any better. True, it is a matter of working together, and I have long been insisting it will involve sacrifice on all sides.

However, any meaningful step in a constructive direction must include the North American church’s cessation of the practice which is precisely at issue in debate. Christians have heretofore considered what Anglicans are currently debating as impermissible and immoral. We cannot have a debate about whether to do something which the American church in particular with ever increasing speed is continuing to do. The way in which the American church has gone about this has been a fiasco for those advocating for this change . The global debate by TEC’s actions has been set back many more years than most dare to understand.

Amidst all the pleading to work together and to have conversation and on and on must be understood that without a total cessation of the practice–which is what the Windsor Report pleaded for–no meaningful progress is really possible. And what is about to happen at Lambeth 2008 if there is no cessation is that the de facto situation in the entire Anglican Communion will be one of reception on the matter of blessing non-celibate same sex unions. Perceptive readers of the Windsor Report will know that on this matter ‘reception’ is not the Anglican Communion’s collective discernment of how to handle this question. But if nothing is done then whether there is a claim to work together or talk more or not, the tear at the deepest level on the Anglican Communion will get worse. This reality is what the Episcopal Church of the Sudan was rightly getting at.

If this tragedy occurs, the responsibility will lie in manifold places, but it will fall primarily–as it does increasingly–at Archbishop Rowan Williams’ feet–KSH.

As we begin our work together, we’re bound to be very much aware of people’s eyes upon us. There are expectations among our own people ”“ both hopes and fears. There are expectations among the representatives of the world’s media ”“ and plenty of stories already which seem to know better than any of us what is going to happen. I saw the headline “Is this the end of the Anglican Communion”. No-one has told us here. And there are our eyes on each other ”“ perhaps not quite sure yet how it’s going to feel, who we’re going to be alongside, whether everything will come out right in the sense that after two weeks we shall be able to say something with real integrity that will move us forward in God’s way.

We know all that; but we need also to know what most matters ”“ that God’s eyes are upon us and that God has entrusted something to us. In the last few days, we have had a chance to hold that firmly in mind as we have shared our time of retreat. We have reminded ourselves that God has entrusted something to each one of us as a bishop, the care of his people and the taking forward of his purpose for humankind through our share in God’s mission. We have been caught up in the infinite consequences of Jesus’ life and death and resurrection. We are part of God’s way of making those consequences real and liberating for all humanity. So all that is said and done in our context here is in some way to do with this fundamental agenda, deepening our commitment to God’s own vision of the world’s future in Christ.

Read it carefully and read it all.

(ACNS) The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams opened the Lambeth Conference to the sounds of South African Alleluias and prayers for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He spoke to the gathering of Anglican Bishops from around the world addressing the first plenary session of the Lambeth Conference yesterday (July 16) He stressed that the Conference had a very strong emphasis on drawing together round the Bible and had been designed as a place “in which every voice can be heard and in which we build Christian relationship”.

He said that his own prayer and hope for the Conference “is not that after two weeks we will find a solution to all our problems but we shall as I have written more than once in some sense find the trust in God and one another that will give us the energy to change in the way God wants us to change. That is the most important thing we can pray for, the energy to change as God wants us to change individually and as a Communion.”
Some Bishops have chosen to stay away although only one Province (Uganda) has no Bishops present. Dr Williams acknowledged this fact, “I think it’s important I should say that it’s a great grief that many of our brothers and sisters in the Communion have not felt able to be with us for these weeks, a grief because we need their voice and they need ours in learning Christ together.”

Dr Williams said that ”“ as he had written to many people in recent months ”“ “I respect and accept the decisions that have been made but together we need in prayer to acknowledge the wound that that makes in our fellowship and to acknowledge also as I must do myself that we still have to do to mend relations that have been hurt. I hope that in these weeks we shall daily be remembering those who are not with us upholding them in our prayers, in our respect and love.

He continued: “I don’t imagine that simply building relationships solves our problems but the nature of our calling as Christians is such that we dare not and I say very strongly dare not pretend that we can meet and discuss without attention to this quality of relation with each other even if we disagree or find our selves going in different directions. The Lord of the Church commands that we must love one another in the process and there is no alternative to that. I trust that you are here in that confidence in that willingness to love one another.”

The Archbishop added that this sounded “so simple” but it had to be said “because we know as we meet that we are also a wounded body.” He added there were no magic words to heal those wounds “but as we seek to meet Jesus Christ in each other we hope that the wounds that are still open will in some sense also be open to receive the work of God the Holy Spirit in our work.”

Dr Williams concluded his address by encouraging the bishops who are now in retreat until Sunday morning “to be there and let God come to you”.

Do read it all.

My first problem is with the headline in that while my sense of the significance of the time in the Anglican Communion is that it is a very important one, my expectations for this Lambeth Conference are low in the sense that it will make a meaningful contribution to the crisis tearing the family apart. I am sure the face to face time will be valuable, and the relational networking opportunities will be abundant, but we should not ignore the elephant in the living room. And, yes, I would love to be surprised.

(I will just note in passing that although the press, especially the British press, seems to have heightened expectations for the meeting, those who are organizing it have seemed to strike a different tone. Also, when I see “expectations are high” I need to ask: high for what?)

My second problem has to do with nomenclature. Some bishops are coming from parts of the Communion who are unable to be present for reasons of conscience and conviction. But in the article we read the term diocese where we should see the word province. “It was not immediately known if anyone from the Anglican Church of Uganda, the fourth “boycotting” diocese,” as the article now reads, is not proper Anglican terminology. Uganda is a province, not a diocese; the same mistake is made in the current headline which now reads “Bishops arrive, including from three ‘boycotting’ dioceses;” again it should be provinces.

Finally, I really do not believe that the proper terminology is to describe what is being done as a boycott. In order to argue for this, I need to go back to the analogy that won’t go away:

It is time to break through the veneer of what may be an air of unreality at this Convention, and tell ourselves the truth. I applaud the Presiding Bishop for saying “unawareness is a form of bondage” and I am concerned about precisely that unawareness now. It is a caricature to say that to speak of the church shattering is to use a threat. That is totally untrue.

Think this through with me. A woman who has been in a marriage for quite some time discovers that her husband is having an emotional affair. There are letters, emails, secret liasions and the like and she stumbles onto them. Then in a moment of great courage she summons her strength and confronts her husband. She gets him to admit the truth. Then she looks him squarely in the eye and says: “if you consummate that relationship our love will be shattered.”

Now the husband can think to himself “she is trying to control me by threat,” but we all know it is nothing of the kind”“ it is instead a loving warning. And please note carefully the husband can also say, “if you choose to go that is your choice, you will be the one responsible,” but that is untrue. And the husband also can say “look dear as long as we keep going to the dinner table together and loving each other we can work this out””“ and that is untrue. Please, please let us tell ourselves the truth..

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””“

Now follow along and see where this goes in terms of the subsequent developments. The husband has consummated the affair. There has been much emotional and personal damage and the relationship is extremely frail. A marriage counselor is brought in. It is suggested because of the severity of the situation that a trial separation is necessary. The husband is asked to apologize and express repentance for his actions, and to cease the affair. The situation could not be more serious.

How to take the analogy further along the steps the Anglican Communion has taken is difficult, but, roughly speaking, there have been more meetings, including meetings of outside leaders who have asked for clarification within specified time limits from the husband, and, even though a group on behalf of said leaders has written a report saying that the husband has satisfied what he is being asked to do in order to repair the breach, his actions on occasion contradict those findings. Even though he has pledged his deep commitment to the marriage, has said he is sorry she has been hurt, and that he takes his wife’s concerns with the utmost seriousness, on certain days of certain months, he is still having the affair.

What does the wife do? Well, yes, at some point she may choose to leave the relationship, but, as a Christian, if she is persevering and prays for the lovingkindess of God to prevail, she might stay in the house.

If she were to choose to stay, the atmosphere would be very different from then on, and, the one thing she must do is act differently in what is left of the relationship itself. Indeed, not to act differently is not a sign of health, but a sign of real sickness. One example of an action she might take is that she might choose to move to another bedroom down the hall from the couple’s bedroom where she would choose to sleep from then on.

You can perhaps see where I am going here. If you were to drop a reporter who didn’t know a lot into this situation, he or she might write a story with the headline: “Wife boycotts marriage bed.” The reporter could write it, but it would not be an accurate description of what is in fact taking place–KSH.

The US Treasury may have just days to act before foreign patience snaps, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Merrill Lynch has warned that the United States could face a foreign “financing crisis” within months as the full consequences of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage debacle spread through the world.

The country depends on Asian, Russian and Middle Eastern investors to fund much of its $700bn (£350bn) current account deficit, leaving it far more vulnerable to a collapse of confidence than Japan in the early 1990s after the Nikkei bubble burst. Britain and other Anglo-Saxon deficit states could face a similar retreat by foreign investors.

Read it all.

“The church does not believe that you should have no story except the story you chose when you had no story. Rather, the church believes that we are creatures of a good God who has storied us through engrafting us to the people of Israel through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians do not believe that we get to choose our story, but rather we discover that God has called us to participate in a story that is not of our own making. That is why we are called into the church as well as why we are called ‘Christian.’ A church so formed cannot help but be a challenge to a social order built on the contrary presumption that I get to make my life up.”

–Stanley Hauerwas, “America’s God,” Communio 34, no. 3 (Fall 2007): p. 480

The Church of England’s ruling body, the General Synod, confirms that it will ordain women as bishops.
Newsnight spoke to the Venerable Christine Hardman, Archdeacon of Lewisham and the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, The Bishop of Fulham, and Chair of the tradtionalist Anglican group Forward in Faith.

Watch it all (just under 7 1/2 minutes).

Let us hear your thoughts.

It is a good day to reflect on America–her history and founding, her calling and responsibility, her past and her future. Therefore I will keep the posts today exclusively on the Independence Day/America theme. This will help us not to fall into all Anglican all the time myopia–KSH.

The twentieth century saw a sea change in the life of the Anglican Communion between its beginning and its end. The Anglican Communion, which at the fifth Lambeth Conference of 1908 was represented by 223 bishops (all of them Doctors of Divinity and a majority of them from England) organised into 11 Provinces, blossomed into a Communion of some 750 bishops (almost all of them indigenous) at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, representing perhaps 70 million Christians organised into 38 Provinces.

Such growth has been almost entirely in the South, and all the really big Churches are now in the continent of Africa. If we are to believe their own statistics, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) comprises some 20 million adherents, the Church of Uganda, 10 million, the Church of Kenya, 5 million and Episcopal Church of the Sudan 4.5 million. Besides them, only the Church of England can compete with 26 million baptised, although 25 million of them hardly ever bother to darken the doors of Church on a Sunday. The growth of the Anglican Communion in the twentieth century has been phenomenal. Today it is a truism to say that the average Anglican is a black woman under the age of 30, who earns two dollars a day, has a family of at least three children, has lost two close relatives to AIDs, and who will walk four miles to Church for a three hour service on a Sunday. These are the realities of the Anglican Communion, and probably quite alien to the Diocese of St Asaph.

It should not be surprising therefore to discover that the twenty-first century has brought a growing impatience with the cultural and financial dominance of the NATO aspects of Communion life, and with it, a growing critique of the Churches of the West. Not only are we in the West shrinking in numbers unlike the growing Churches of the South; for many critics, the Churches of the West are losing a sense of their identity as they get lulled into the liberalism and relativism which are presumed to be the hallmarks of the modern Western society.

Please read it carefully and read it all.

In the past two years, more than 200 Episcopal bishops, priests, and deacons have left the ministry “for reasons not affecting moral character” (language that indicates a departure from the church for reasons of conscience). The notices arrive almost daily in my diocesan mailbox ”“ depositions, removals, renunciations, many of them bearing the names of beloved friends.

Three bishops left The Episcopal Church for the Roman Catholic Church in the past year, and several others have departed for alternative Anglican jurisdictions. (Whatever one thinks about these jurisdictions ”“ and I believe that they represent a seriously disordered way to deal with ecclesiastical conflict ”“ they are clearly a “fact on the ground” with which we must deal.) The church is bleeding, and we face a crisis of unprecedented proportions. I can think of no other time in this church’s history when leaders have left in such massive numbers. Clergy are leaving, as well as parishes, and an entire diocese.

In the face of this painful reality, I am convinced that the church has made a significant error…
We have turned to the canons as the primary way to navigate the treacherous waters of our Anglican conflict. A case in point: the recent depositions of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin, and the Rt. Rev. William Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland and Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, for abandoning the communion of the church. Clearly, they were guilty of canonical violations. Bishop Schofield had led (or sought to lead) his diocese out of The Episcopal Church. Bishop Cox had performed episcopal acts without appropriate permission. The question does not, however, simply have to do with their “guilt.” Given the reality of our conflict, should we be invoking the canons as our way to deal with the tragedy we face?

Important questions have been raised concerning the canonical process surrounding the depositions, and I share those concerns. Did we honor the letter as well as the spirit of Canon IV.9? On several grounds (lack of what appears to be the canonically mandated quorum and, in Bishop Cox’s case, a failure to observe the canon’s timeline and the requirement for prior inhibition) the answer may well be “No.” At a minimum, many persons have respectfully questioned the canon’s application in these cases.

While I voted against the depositions, I did not cast my vote on the grounds of possible canonical inconsistencies. Rather, I was motivated by another consideration. Should we be using the canons at all? That is the more pertinent question. The canons, after all, represent a “technical” solution to the conflict that has engulfed The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. They are the rules and regulations, the organizational skeleton. Turning to the rule book fails to respond to the complexities over which we struggle. Our issues are at heart theological, spiritual, pastoral and relational. People of good will, acting in accord with their conscience, feel compelled to take action. Some of them leave. I cannot join them. My own convictions require that I remain in the church and remain engaged in its often chaotic life. That is an obligation as solemn as any that I have undertaken.

But how do we respond to those who believe they must depart? How do we say goodbye in a manner that honors the Gospel, indeed honors our Lord himself? John Henry Newman, as he prepared to leave the Church of England for Rome, preached a sermon at St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, titled “The Parting of Friends.” Can we part as friends, without the canonical “death penalty”? Can we say goodbye in a way that enhances the life of the church and leaves open the possibility of the reconciliation?

The canonical actions upon which we’ve embarked inevitably will sow a harvest of bitterness. Dioceses do not depose a priest or a deacon without heartbreaking thought and prayer. Nor did the House of Bishops act against Bishops Schofield and Cox lightly. The moment was profoundly somber. I don’t question the motives of those who have used canonical sanctions, or of my colleagues who voted in favor of the recent depositions. They desire the best for Christ’s church, and believe these canonical actions to be an appropriate response to this wave of departures.

I foresee a plunge into relational disarray. Each time we depose a cleric, the action will become a little easier, a bit less agonized. The gulf between those who remain and those who’ve left will grow so immense that healing will be possible only in the New Jerusalem. The canons, as a response of first resort, cannot help us through this terrible season in the church’s life. They are profoundly inadequate for the crisis. And so I urge three courses of action:

First, we need to fast from canonical action; make a decision that for the moment we will simply do nothing when a bishop or a priest or a deacon departs. This would be the ecclesiastical equivalent of taking a deep breath. As a matter of pastoral strategy, allowing time to pass without canonical action can provide the room for conversation and, perhaps, reconciliation.

Second, we need to look for imaginative ways of surviving this “in the meantime” time. There may be interim agreements between dioceses and parishes and clergy ”“ outside of but not contrary to the canons ”“ that can buy us breathing space. In other words, we should begin by looking for creative, adaptive solutions, ways of dealing with one another non-juridically as the Spirit helps us to sort things out. The Anglican Communion itself is struggling with these matters, not least as we draft an Anglican Covenant. Finding an interim protocol while we work with our Anglican partners can create the setting that enables us, around the Communion, to think and pray together.

Third, we need to revise our canons in the light of the current and tragic reality. Once invoked, all that the current canons allow is the “death penalty.” The canons have no equivalent of a civil proceeding. They are purely criminal. One possible change: Many years ago, the canons permitted missing clergy (who had somehow become inaccessible to their bishops) to be placed on a roster called the Special List of the House of Bishops. It was neither disciplinary nor punitive, but simply descriptive. Perhaps we can find some kind of equivalent in our own day, a way of placing departing clergy on a list that says that they’ve stepped away but will be welcomed home easily and joyfully.

Paul, Barnabas, and Mark provide a model. “After some days, Paul said to Barnabas, ”˜Come, let us return and visit the believers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.’ Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul decided not to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they parted company; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and set out . . . [for] Syria and Cilicia” (Acts 15:36-41). We will never know the details of what transpired, but toward the end of Paul’s life he wrote the Christians in Colossae: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions ”“ if he comes to you, welcome him” (Col. 3:10). The separation between Paul, Barnabas, and Mark was, if I may put it in contemporary terms, non-canonical. They moved apart, but made no permanent decision. That very flexibility allowed for the reconciliation which is at the heart of the Gospel.

–This article appeared in the June 29, 2008, issue of The Living Church, and is found here but posted in full since the main item on the diocesan website keeps changing and eventually moves off the page

To no one’s surprise, the legal challenges have begun.

South Carolina legislators have broached the contentious issue of separation of church and state with two provocative laws that some say are sure to cost taxpayers money in legal fees and could take resources away from other pressing matters.

A law passed in early June by the General Assembly provides for the production and distribution of a new vanity license plate that features a cross superimposed on an image of a stained-glass window and the phrase “I Believe.”

Read it all.

The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb
P. O. Box 7606
Stockton, CA 95267

Re: St. Andrew’s Anglican Mission

Dear Bishop Lamb:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This will reply to your June 1, 2008, letter to Father Charles Threewit concerning St. Andrew’s Anglican Mission in Taft, California.

Our records indicate that St. Andrew’s Mission validly adopted Anglican bylaws on March 23, 2008. These bylaws cannot be amended without my consent (which was not requested and not given) and without a properly called meeting of the Bishop’s Committee. Title to the Mission’s real property is held by the Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation.

We do not have any first hand knowledge about the meeting you conducted where you say “an overwhelming majority vote” was recorded by those present to remain with the Episcopal Church. We do know that whatever meeting took place was not properly noticed and that a voting quorum of the Bishop’s Committee was not present. Following your meeting, you apparently caused the locks on the Mission doors to be changed and you and your agents have taken physical possession of the building. These actions are all very irregular and, in my opinion, unlawful.

On top of it all, you apparently asked one of our priests who holds Anglican orders, Father Upton, to conduct services. Father Upton has asked my permission to conduct services on a temporary basis and I have granted his request to stabilize the situation for the time being. The Anglican contingent of the Mission can be ministered to by our three thriving Anglican parishes in Bakersfield until we can sort this matter out.

It is not our intention to rush back in and change the locks, as you have done, and cause further upheaval in this small mission. Our actions, however, are not to be construed as a waiver of any rights on our part. The civil courts and our ongoing investigation will ultimately settle the matter of title to the real and personal property of the Mission. To this end, it would be helpful if you would forward to us the minutes of
the meeting you conducted so we can review them.

We will also permit your use of the Mission computer under the same reservation of rights and with your implicit agreement that it will remain at the Mission until a final decision is made by the courts or by our agreement. Father Threewit, the priest in charge, temporarily removed the computer because he suspected something was afoot but he did not know what it was. He thought it wise under the circumstances to remove the computer so its contents could be copied. That has been accomplished and we will make arrangements to get it back to the Mission.

While I in no way agree with or condone your actions, nevertheless, may the peace of God be with you.

In Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) John-David M. Schofield, SSC, is Bishop of San Joaquin

Rocco Mediate’s head swiveled about as he walked up the fairway of the sudden-death hole of the U.S. Open on Monday. Somebody would catch his attention, and his eyes would dart over and he’d wave or make a crack. Tiger Woods’s gaze, on the other hand, remained fixed on the ground, a few feet ahead of his steps. He was, as always, locked in, focused and self-contained.

The fans greeted Mediate with fraternal affection and Woods with reverence. Most were probably rooting for Rocco, but only because Woods, the inevitable victor, has risen above mere human status and become an embodiment of immortal excellence. That frozen gaze of his looks out from airport billboards, TV commercials and the ad pages. And its ubiquity is proof that every age finds the heroes it needs.

In a period that has brought us instant messaging, multitasking, wireless distractions and attention deficit disorder, Woods has become the exemplar of mental discipline. After watching Woods walk stone-faced through a roaring crowd, the science writer Steven Johnson, in a typical comment, wrote: “I have never in my life seen a wider chasm between the look in someone’s eye and the surrounding environment.”

Read it all

Visual artists today tend to use the wall in practical ways. They hang paintings on it or cast moving images upon its white surface. Often, artists apply an explanatory plaque or sticker beneath or beside their work.

Sculptors place their objects in the exhibit space using the walls of the room as a kind of framing device, for our perception of objects is partly determined by the way they relate to their surroundings.

Mass and shape define sculpture and, to a lesser extent, framed paintings, for these are objects with which the viewer interacts within a defined space. It is this interaction that influences what we think and how we feel about the art on display.

The wall, then, is typically a means to an end, a little-noticed support system.

Read it all from the Faith and Values section of the local paper.