I am grateful for the tone of this meeting and for many aspects of the process and the contributions many bishops from very diferent perspectives made to it. I wish that such openness and frankness, and serious discussion, had characterized earlier meetings. (And here I refer to 15 years of such meetings!)

But the final result, I must confess, is disappointing to me. I do not believe the answers requested by the Primates have been given. I do not believe we have moved very far ”“ if at all ”“ from where we were before this meeting in terms of the assurances sought. I certainly think that internally, the House of Bishops changed its dynamics in a number of ways that are welcome. But for all that, we still seem, as one bishop has said, “stuck.”

It seems that, even with the best of intentions, we simply cannot get beyond the thought that we might learn from what the Archbishop of Canterbury called “common discernment;” in other words, that our decisions as a House might be wrong and at any rate ought to be subject to the advice and concerns of our Communion bothers and sisters. Many bishops argued for ambiguity as the most “honest” statement of “where we are.” Perhaps that is true. That is the effectual outcome of this meeting.

Read it all.

The clear message of the September 25th House of Bishops (HOB) statement is that they are determined to stay on the exact same course that they have been on all along.

Although promising “not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions” sounds like a prohibition, in reality it is a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in practice. This has been demonstrated by Bishop Bruno’s recent comments that he has not authorized such blessings, while priests in the Diocese of Los Angeles do so without hesitation. If this were a prohibition, priests who conduct such blessings would be inhibited by Bishop Bruno. To date, this has not happened. Not authorizing “a public rite” means that The Episcopal Church (TEC) will not authorize and publish an official prayer book service for same-sex unions. In other words, clergy in dioceses who wish to perform same-sex unions may continue to do so, so long as it is not an official public rite. This is neither prohibition nor restraint. It is simply turning a blind eye.

Likewise, the promise to “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church” is a proclamation of intent that falls far short of repentance, and is no guarantee of cessation. At best this is a pause, not a change in direction. Were this a change in direction, a lesbian candidate for the Diocese of Chicago would be removed from the list. What did the HOB statement say about ordaining practicing homosexuals to other clerical orders? Nothing.

Read it all.

There were a remarkable series of dynamics in play at the just concluded House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. For starters, there was the dynamic between the Episcopal Church (increasingly identified as TEC by the rest of the Anglican Communion)”“ represented by the House of Bishops; and the rest of the Anglican Communion ”“ represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and several leaders of the Anglican Consultative Council (the ACC). The Archbishop and the representatives of the ACC presented to us a rather united front in their disdain/concern/anger at TEC for getting out ahead of the rest of the Anglican Communion in our actions over the last three years (the more gentle presentation) ”“ or abrogating our commitment to the Communion and the Gospel (the more harsh presentation). We later learned that the ACC position may not have been so united ”“ in that some of the ACC members present, who represented different views, were not given the opportunity to speak to us. It was also troubling to learn that an edited version of the most ardent presentation was on the internet within an hour of it being presented to us.

Another dynamic in play was the sense I had that we are dealing with more than one house of bishops. The primary house is comprised of the vast majority of bishops who stayed through the whole meeting ”“ and who worked hard, and well, to build bridges and create solidarity in the midst of diversity. It appears to me that an ancillary or adjunct House is made up of a small group of dissident bishops who left the meeting as soon as the Archbishop of Canterbury did. Their media champions stayed ”“ and seemed to have versions of our work ”“ with their own unique commentary on it, out in public before we even finished that work.

To my mind, the “primary” House of Bishops was able to sort through these various dynamics, and build on the work that we did at our meeting in March. Although it may not be reflected in our final statement, there was a growing sense during the meeting that we are willing and able to honor our differences ”“ which are reflected in our differing theologies and liturgical practices. There was not an attempt to demand conformity ”“ or to diminish any particular diocesan response to the invitations and challenges of the Gospel.

Read it all.

In the interest of clarity, I would like to report to the clergy and people of the Diocese of South Carolina on the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. I am particularly concerned that you hear directly from me as the distortion in the media and on blogs is profound.

From my perspective this was probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful.

I asked for and was granted permission to speak to the whole House beyond any contribution I made in the various debates.

The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury was helpful in getting us to look at where we are as a Church and a Communion; and what that says about our ecclesiology.

Profound pain was experienced when members of the ACC Steering Committee and the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East addressed the House. They told us how the decisions made by the Episcopal Church had affected their mission and ecumenical relationships destructively in their lands. It was a moving experience.

Just as devastating was the address from Bishop Jeffrey Steenson explaining why he was resigning his orders and becoming a Roman Catholic. We are good friends and have worked closely together.

We then had a report giving us the list of congregations leaving the Episcopal Church in part or whole for other Anglican jurisdictions and the names of these jurisdictions. A number of the clergy were well known to me. Even the loss of one because of our conflict is a painful matter for me at the end of my ministry. It is a matter of great sorrow.

In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us.

I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:

1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.

I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.

–The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., is acting Bishop of South Carolina

The Speech was given in closed session so I am guessing that is why it was not reported. The key phrase he used was “I cannot support the document.”

* Note Kevin Kallsen should be broadcasting this very shortly *
link: http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/9/25/Common-Cause-PIttsburgh-Tuesday-Stream
[hat tip to Stand Firm]

A total of 51 bishops and bishops-elect representing tens-of-thousands of Anglicans in North America are meeting together Sept. 25-28 in Pittsburgh , PA. The meeting of the first-ever Common Cause Council of Bishops brings together bishops and observers from the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Network in Canada, the Anglican Province of America, Anglican Essentials Canada, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, Forward in Faith North America and the Reformed Episcopal Church.

In welcoming the assembled bishops, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh and convener of the gathering, said that before any unified orthodox Anglicanism could be expected to emerge in North America relationships among bishops and jurisdictions need to be reordered. “Our shortcoming is not ‘right Faith.’ Our shortcoming is ‘right Order’ and ‘right Mission ,'” said Bishop Duncan.

Bishop Duncan went on to suggest that the bishops discuss a number of practical points that could contribute to building a more unified orthodox Anglicanism in North America . Among those points, he asked that the bishops agree to consult each other as they plant congregations, mutually review candidates for bishop before consecrations, share ministry initiatives instead of duplicating efforts, work actively together at the local level, and allow those ordained in one jurisdiction to function in all jurisdictions.

“Our theme for this Council of Bishops is ‘Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate.’ The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done – or not done – to the world,” said Bishop Duncan.

The full text of Bishop Duncan’s opening remarks follows:
A HISTORIC CONCLAVE

“Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate”
Welcome to Pittsburgh ! Welcome to the Common Cause Partnership Council of Bishops! Welcome to three days of worship, fellowship, teaching, sharing and incredibly hard work.

Welcome Bishops, Bishops-elect, Bishops-designate, Wives, Presenters, Intercessors, Staff, Friends. Welcome to Dr. George Hunter of Asbury Seminary, our keynote speaker tonight, and welcome to Prof. Justyn Terry of Trinity School for Ministry, our Scripture expositer for the next three mornings.

During the early hours of yesterday, the Lord reminded me of the word “conclave.” Bishop’s meetings are sometimes “with the key withheld,” the literal meaning of the Latin root. Bishops gathering in conclave cannot come out until they have a successful result. While there will be no one “locking us in,” the whole Anglican world is expecting something great of us in this meeting. They are expecting some “key” to unlock a more hopeful future. Let us not fail them, or our God.

RE-STRUCTURING RELATIONSHIPS

Most of our work here is behind closed doors. This is an intentional decision on the part of the seven lead bishops who did the planning: Bishops Ackerman, Grundorf, Harvey, Minns, Murphy, Riches and myself. We need to speak the truth to one another. We need to do some hard thinking and hard talking. The future of Anglicanism in North America is at stake.

On Trinity Sunday in 2004, the leaders of the first six (now ten) Partners wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury “signifying our commitment to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America.”

The Primates of the Global South, writing from Kigali exactly one year ago, stated that the time had come for a “separate ecclesiastical structure in the United States [ North America ].” What we come together to do is to see whether we can so re-order the relationships among us that the way might be opened for such a structure to emerge.

Our shortcoming is not “right Faith.” Our shortcoming is “right Order” and “right mission.”

– Can we agree to interchangeability of those in holy orders?

– Will we work actively together at the local level?

– Will we consult with one another as we seek to plant congregations?

– Can we agree to mutual review of candidates for bishop before consecrations?

– Will we share ministry initiatives or needlessly duplicate efforts?

– Can we agree about appropriate ratios of bishops to congregations, attendance and membership?

– Would each one of us be willing to give up episcopal function for the good of the whole, were that in the best interests of all?

– Could each one of us become a missionary bishop over a growing Church?

Our theme for this Council of Bishops is “Together in Mission : Restoring Confidence in an American Episcopate.” The whole world is watching. After speaking the truth to each other, we will need to speak the truth about what we have done – or not done – to the world.

Anglicanism appears to be failing in the West. We cannot answer for how others have failed, or are failing, but we must surely answer for what we do – or do not do – here in this place, in this conclave, wherein we hold the key.

WELCOME

Again the warmest of welcomes, for the most important of tasks. Almost upon us is Global Anglicanism’s September 30th deadline for bishops in America to make response about “walking together” or “walking apart.” It is to walking together that we are called, is it not? I am confident in the company gathered here and, above all, in the Lord who has called us. We are here to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and here to make common cause for a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America . We have our work cut out for us, we whose highest calling is as servants of the servants of God, and God’s servants all across the land very much have their eyes set upon us and upon this place for these days. May God’s help be ours in abundance.

Read it all.

Update: The Living Church has an article about Bishop Steenson’s statement here. Here’s the concluding section:

“From time to time it seems necessary for some to embark on these personal journeys as a reminder that the churches of the Reformation were not intended to carry on indefinitely separated from their historical and theological mooring in the Church of Rome,” he said. “I believe that the Lord now calls me in this direction.”

In concluding remarks, Bishop Steenson asked for forgiveness from his fellow bishops “for any difficulty this may cause and for anything I may have said or done that has failed to live up to the love of Christ.

“I hope that you will not see this as a repudiation of The Episcopal Church or Anglicanism. Rather, it is the sincere desire of a simple soul to bear witness to the fullness of the Catholic faith, in communion with what St. Irenaeus called ”˜that greatest and most ancient Church.’ I believe that our noble Anglican tradition (”˜this worthy patrimony’) has deep within it the instinct of a migratory bird calling, ”˜It is time to fly home to a place you have never seen before.’ May the Lord bless my steps and yours and bring our paths together in his good time.”

A snippet from Matt Kennedy’s live blog of tonight’s press conference. Please remember this may not be word-for-word accurate (as Matt+ says, this is live not memorex). A few typos corrected by the elves.

NPR: to Bruno, do you see any possibility of TEC reversing course with regard to sexuality issues

Bruno: I don’t believe we’ll ever turn back the clock. We are not responding to that right now. WE are responding to what has been asked of us. As to whether we are going to withdraw our support for gay and lesbian people in the church. no they are fully franchised. Are we going to exacerbate the situation no.

The full live blog is here.

Update: there’s also this at BabyBlue regarding the rest of +Bruno’s remarks this evening. What was it Kendall wrote last week about Honesty vs. Obfuscation?

Update 2: Stand Firm has more on the question of +Bruno’s involvement in SSBs in Los Angeles. Note: Matt is now working from a *recording* of the press conference, thus +Bruno’s actual word’s, not a mere close approximation.

I thought it might be helpful to extract the bishops’ seven points from the rest of the verbiage of their proposed statement. Here they are:

1. We affirm and support the PB’s plan to provide Episcopal visitors for dioceses within the Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report (paragraph 152) affirmed that our plan for DEPO is reasonable and saw no reason why such delegated pastoral and sacramental oversight should not be provided by bishops from within this province. We believe the Presiding Bishop’s plan is consistent with DEPO and we thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry.

2. While we have already expressed concerns about the recommendations made by the Primates for a pastoral scheme, we nonetheless urge the PB to continue conversations with those requesting alternative oversight, seeking ways to create and implement arrangements which meet pastoral needs and which do not violate our Constitution and Canons. We urge those requesting such oversight to participate in these conversations and to assist in finding appropriate solutions. We pray that a way forward can be found which will bring an end to the incursions of extra-provincial bishops. These incursions imperil the Communions principle of honoring one another as we work together in good faith on these very difficult issues.

3. We continue to invite all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to join in the listening process which was embraced by the 1998 Lambeth Conference I prayerfully considering the place of gay and lesbian people in our common life. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process from every province if the communion and to our own continuing participation with others in this crucial project. We see an important role for the ACC in helping to accomplish this objective, as well as in addressing other important issues that come before us. The ACC is representative of both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and it is the only body possessing a written constitution.

4. We have attempted to respond to the Primates questions regarding Resolution B033. in honesty we must report that within the HOB there is disagreement as to how this resolution is to be interpreted and applied. As we live with this painful reality, conversation study and prayer will continue. We recognize the challenge our disagreement presents for some in the Communion and we respectfully ask for their patience and forbearance.

5. Because we are a liturgical church our actions concerning
blessings are expressed in public liturgies. No rite of blessing for
persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our
General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of
Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies. Even in the
absence of such public rites, we acknowledge that the blessing of
same sex unions, no matter how public or private, is unacceptable to
some of our brothers and sisters in our own House, in our church, and
in the Communion. The issue remains perplexing for us as we seek to
balance these concerns about rites of blessing and the pressing
pastoral need that confronts us. We wish to offer respect for these
differing viewpoints.

We are grateful that the Primates have articulated their support for
meeting the individual pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons. In
2003 they wrote “there is a duty of pastoral care that is laid upon
all Christians to respond with love and understanding to homosexual
persons.” The Primates have writeen that there must be a breadth of
private and pastoral responses to individual situations. It is the
case that for many decades, the Episcopal Church has explored the
most faithful ways of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people
who are part of our common life. We acknowledge that in some of our
dioceses this includes the blessing of same sex unions.

6. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008
Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and
expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with
bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish those
relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on
those partnerships.

We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received
an invitation to Lambeth. We are also mindful that the Archbishop of
Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way to include Bishop
Robinson in the Lambeth Conference. Because we believe that this is a
matter of importance to the House of Bishops, we propose that the
Archbishop of Canterbury invite a small group of bishops appointed by
the Presiding Bishop to assist him in facilitating Bishop Robinson’s
presence and participation.

7. We reaffirm our March 2007 statement in which we said, “We
proclaim the Gospel of what God has done is doing in Christ, of the
dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace.
We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no
male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in
Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal
participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel
that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons,
are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We
proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including
violence done to women and children as well as those who are
persecuted because of their difference, often in the name of God.”

To read these points in their context go here.

Received by e-mail, posted with the kind permission of Bishop John Howe of Central Florida.

To My Fellow Bishops:

We are deeply, tragically, horribly “stuck,” not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to “common discernment,” and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a “Gospel imperative.” But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock.

What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.

I propose that we:

1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.

2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen).

3) Those committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.

4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury’s terminology of “constituent” and “associate” membership for our dioceses. “Constituent” = fully Windsor-compliant. “Associate” = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.

5) Those congregations and clergy which are in “associate” dioceses, who wish to continue in “constituent” membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of “constituent” dioceses and Bishops – and vice-versa.

6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into “constituent” dioceses.

7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in “constituent” dioceses.

8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the “constituent” dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).

9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a “new consensus” has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination –

10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Read it all.

From Bishop Epting’s blog:

[CORRECTION: the elf sincerely apologizes for originally mis-attributing this to Bp. Pierre Whalon. The two bishops’ blog feeds are adjacent in my RSS feed and so even though the link was to Bp. Epting’s blog, I saw the name Whalon and wrote that without thinking.]

Quite a roller coaster of a day yesterday. Our first time, as Episcopal bishops, to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury to talk face-to-face about our ongoing issues in the Anglican Communion.

We began with a festive Eucharist in the hotel with a great sermon by our Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori and the lusty singing of hymns from “Holy, holy, holy” through “There’s a sweet, sweet Spirit in this place” (and, perhaps surprisingly, there is!) to “O Praise Ye the Lord!”

Then, we entered into table discussions and open plenaries sharing our Hopes and Concerns for this meeting. My hope was that we could find a way to assure the Communion that we will do what General Convention has asked us to do by exercising restraint in consenting to the election of bishops whose manner of life will produce additional strains on the Communion. My concern is, that nothing we do will be enough for some ”” in our own House and in the Communion.

The afternoon continued with a brief address by Archbishop Rowan Williams and two questions to wrestle with: how far can we go in accommodating the request of the Primates’ Communique and what kind of “shared episcopal leadership” (within our own House) would we find possible and helpful. Lots of pain and anguish from all sides in the open discussion which followed. But it was good for Rowan and the other Primates and visitors from across the Communion to see the kind of respectful and thoughtful conversation we can have together.

I learned nothing really new. No conversations we have not had before. But it was good for our overseas colleagues to engage with us. It would have been helpful for the Archbishop to have done this three years ago.

Full text is here.

Resolution offered by Bruce MacPherson, Russell Jacobus, Geralyn Wolf, and C. Franklin Brookhart

Read it here.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6119/

We’ve been trying to post this but technical problems are preventing the text from appearing here. So head on over to Stand Firm!

September 20, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I arrived in New Orleans yesterday for the House of Bishops Meeting which officially began this morning and will end on Tuesday night, Sept. 25th. I ask each of you to enter into a period of prayer and fasting, keeping not only me, but the entire House of Bishops in your prayers, as well as ++Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the visiting members of the Primate’s Standing Committee. We are truly at a critical time in the life of the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion. This is NOT “just one more meeting.” I sincerely believe that the decisions made by the House of Bishops at this meeting will be a key factor in determining the future of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
I invite you to join me in praying that the Holy Spirit will come mightily upon this House, touching and transforming the hearts and souls and minds of every Bishop here, helping us to discern and carry out the will of God. May His will and only His will be done. Just as Paul encountered the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, may we too have a Damascus road experience in which we, the House of Bishops, are convicted of that which is not of God, repenting and asking His forgiveness of our sins, and then be given the grace to be faithful and obedient in exercising our ministry as bishops in God’s holy Church, keeping Jesus Christ at the center of all that we do.
Archbishop Rowan Williams will be with us through tomorrow afternoon. I pray the Holy Spirit will speak clearly to and through him as he addressed the House of Bishops. May we be open to what he has to say.
While we will be addressing a variety of issues throughout the meeting, one of the most important things we will deal with is our official response to the Primate’s Communiqué to the House of Bishops regarding the Windsor Report. As most of you are well aware, there is much division within the Church regarding what our response should be. Again, it is my prayer that God’s will be done. Thank you for yours prayers and your faithfulness.

In Christ Jesus,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Bill Love is Bishop of Albany

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

I write to you out of deep prayer for the life of our Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion.

The House of Bishops’ meeting begins on Wednesday evening, September 19th, with the first two days spent in the honored company of Archbishop Rowan Williams, Primates from the Joint Standing Committee, and other invited guests.

Primarily, we are being called to offer a response to the Windsor Report (including an Anglican covenant), and the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam. Once the meeting adjourns, the Archbishop is to consult with other Primates to consider a response to our deliberations and resolutions, after which they will give us a timely response. In addition, we will discuss the MDG’s, spend a day working in New Orleans, and visit neighboring parishes on Sunday morning.

On Wednesday, September 26th, I will arrive home about two hours before the regularly scheduled meeting of Diocesan Council, and will communicate with you as soon as I am able.

Please pray for me and all our bishops. I leave for this meeting with a deep sense of anxiety, and my prayers have been for wisdom and humility at a time when there seems to be growing entrenchment and self-righteousness. May we honor one another in the honor and glory that is God’s gift through Jesus Christ.

May God bless all of us.

(The Rt. Rev.) Geralyn Wolf is Bishop of Rhode Island

[The Source for this is here].

What is wrong with the proposed Covenant

Its origins are shallow, being primarily the Windsor Report, and the “recent life of the Instruments of Communion;” that is, rather than drawing upon our scriptural and larger tradition sources, the Covenant is based on a recently prepared report that has immediately gained authoritative status usually only granted documents tested by time, and upon recent experience of a body of leaders of the Communion.

Related to this last point, the Covenant was drafted in response to urgency, a sense of ”˜severe strain.” While at times we must recognize genuine emergencies and respond with rapidity, in crafting guidelines intended to direct the inter-life of the vast, sprawling Anglican Communion over time, we should hope for a creative climate of peace, of dynamic shalom, rather than stress and anxiety.

Read it all.

This year’s diocesan convocation comes at a time of transitions at many levels in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. The fall meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans, the Sept. 30 deadline set by the Anglican Communion Primates, and the guest list for the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops are some of the factors that likely will bring about significant changes in the Church.

Here in the Diocese of the Rio Grande we will experience this volatile time with particular sadness, as it is likely that the clergy and almost all of the members of the Pro-Cathedral of St. Clement in El Paso will have made the decision
to separate from the diocese and the Episcopal Church. The contributions St. Clement’s, our largest congregation, has made to the diocese for more than a century are incalculable. We are dealing with the loss of a number of effective
diocesan leaders from that congregation and the very significant support that St. Clement’s provides to the life and mission of the diocese.

It is an acute sense of alienation from the Episcopal Church that has led St. Clement’s to take these steps, and many in this diocese feel the same way…

Read it all (page 1).

Instead of falling into the temptation of offering criticism, I ask myself what is good in what has occurred? The great church revolution ”“ whether our service is expressed formally or more informally – has captured three good things for us.

First, relationships. The church of 1959 contained many nominal Christians. Amongst us, the Graham Crusade was most effective. But the day of the local church as the community at prayer was on the point of extinction. Some decades later, we can trace the great change which libertarianism has created in the world. Who could possibly have predicted the revolution which has overtaken an institution as solid as marriage, for example? We can now see the absolute need for churches to become communities in themselves, sets of relationships in which people can care for one another, meet each other marry each other, befriend each other. Today about 61% of Sydney Anglicans attend small groups ”“ groups which hardly existed in churches in the early 1960s. We have retained community where the world has been against it.

When the congregation meets, therefore, we must encourage, support and nurture relationships ”“ first with God and then with each other. To this end, formality or informality is not the issue. Either may foster relationships; either may hinder them. But it is certain that the mere repetition of what we used to do will no longer be meaningful. Furthermore, it is not biblical. Whatever we may think of modern church life, it far better fits the picture of the church we have in the New Testament than church life in the 1950s. This is one of the reasons why so much that succoured the spiritual life was found amongst the parachurch organisations and fellowships instead of the local churches. Look at the teaching about how to behave in Ephesians and Colossians. You will find that in order to obey it you are required to have close relationships with those you go to church with. We are the Body of Christ, not a collection of people who happen to live in the same suburb.

In thinking of relationships we also need to think of what we offer others. Human relationships are one of the most attractive products of the gospel. The older churches were accessible because people had prior knowledge. Thus Mr Bean knew more or less what to expect and even could sing the hymns. Now, however, entry to a church building is as foreign an experience to most people as it would be for us to enter a Hindu temple. This is compounded when the insider’s behaviour is inexplicable and inaccessible. Our churches are part of what this nation needs. Let us make them more open to the outsider.

Second, reality. It is hard now to imagine the gap that exists between the piety of the older church and that of the newer one. But our social life has taken a turn away from formality, away from ritual, away from ceremonial. This may be illustrated in a hundred ways. It all represents a hunger for reality judged in personal terms; we may not like it; we may regard it as a sign of bad manners; we may think that informality is no more a sure bearer of spiritual reality than the formal. We may indeed think what we like. But the change has occurred, and if we wish to be missionaries within this culture, it must be reflected in what we do in church, at some levels. We must recognise that for many, many people, old church ways sound like the very epitome of the inauthentic, as well as being incomprehensible and deadening. I think that what we have done is to say that the Christian faith is serious and it is personal, authentic and spiritual.

Read it all.

Read it all in case you had not earlier.

At this particular gathering in New Orleans our House of Bishops will address three significant matters. We have been asked to clarify what were our intentions when General Convention passed B033 last summer, the very difficult “compromise” in which we pledged not to consent to the election of a bishop whose “manner of life” would pose a challenge to our communion. Many disagreed with our action, but everyone knew what was being said by this resolution. Secondly, we have been asked to clarify whether or not we have authorized the blessing of same gender unions. We, as a church, have not and I believe we can say that with integrity. However, a minority have interpreted our commitment to the pastoral care of gay and lesbian persons as permission to allow for the blessing of same gender relationships.

Thirdly, we have been asked to consider the concept of a covenant, including what would be its purpose, content and instruments of accountability? Controversial from its outset and dismissed by every faction of the Communion at one time or another, the idea of a covenant remains alive and will be a part of our ongoing conversation for years to come.

Some bishops and spouses will be spending time on the Gulf Coast on Saturday and Sunday of our meeting. They will receive an orientation to our challenges, work out of Camp Coast Care in rebuilding projects and join coast congregations for Sunday worship. I believe their presence among us will point again to our experience over the past two years of being “One Church in Mission.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury will be meeting with us for two days of our deliberations. His presence among us is eagerly anticipated and I am delighted that he accepted our invitation to join us. I have been asked to sit with him when we move to our traditional small group tables for in depth conversations during plenary sessions. I am honored to be chosen by our Presiding Bishop to participate in this way and look forward to a deeper conversation with Archbishop Williams than I had previously imagined.

Read it all. I find it baffling that he omits the issue of the pastoral scheme and the response thereto by the previous House of Bishops meeting and the Executive Council. Also, if everyone knew what B033 meant then why were so many different understandings given at the time? Also, what of resolution C051 and the practice of numerous dioceses of allowing same sex blessings in contravention of the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion?KSH.

One of the greatest problems the Church faces today is the willingness to ascribe motivations and “hidden agendas” to those who disagree with us. This escalates not only our suspicion of others but levels of anger. Actions based more upon rumors and fear rather than facts cause us to separate ourselves from one another. At this writing in early September we are all aware of momentous decisions that lie ahead. The American House of Bishops has been presented with the deadline of Sept. 30 to turn from unbiblical theology and practices. Those who plead for more time and dialogue claiming that even the worst rifts can be overcome with cool headed conversation and understanding now seem to be the very ones who know what the outcome will be and have moved into action. Two parishes within the diocese have already voted to leave the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and a third is prepared to vote in the same manner within days while neither the House of Bishops, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury himself have presumed to know what the future holds. Such premature and precipitous action can only have one interpretation. These folks know in their heart of hearts that there will be no turning back, no repentance and that the unilateral action of the American Church will bring about the break-up of the Anglican Communion as we have known it or the division of our own Church in the United States or, worse, the disintegration of both.

The cry of the majority of Episcopalians has been that UNITY trumps TRUTH, that ”” in fact ”” Anglicans have been famous for keeping the unity of the Church while recognizing serious differences of theology among ourselves. We have prided ourselves on the fact that even though we are a creedal church we are not bound by a single confessional statement of belief. Early Church Fathers are quoted on this point with such frequency that it appears history itself is neglected when our attention is directed to one bishop who was prepared to stand alone, suffer exile, and remain faithful to the Scriptures for truth’s sake, ultimately winning over the whole Church that was prepared to reject him. We are reminded of our English heritage when during the time of the Elizabethan Settlement in the 1500s Anglicans remained together as theologies looking to Protestant Geneva as well as to the Catholicism of Rome were both accommodated. Here in North America with hostilities tearing our nation apart, even Civil War could not break the unity found within the House of Bishops. Southern bishops, absent for four years, took their seats among their brothers where no mention of the separation was ever made. As far as the Episcopal Church was concerned, our unity did not have to be restored. . .it was never recognized nor ever broken. Yet, when it comes to the LARGER UNITY, namely that of the worldwide Anglican Communion, these same advocates of unity within the American Church, so far, have turned their backs. The fact that decisions made in the United States by us have had a profound ”” and, in some instances a fatal”” effect upon men and women ministering abroad seems of little consequence. Our “truth” for our society somehow takes precedence over unity beyond our borders. Are we to understand that unity with brother and sister Anglicans around the world can be sacrificed for our different “truth”?

Read it all.

Download it and read it all.

Anglican Mainstream has posted a letter of thanks by Bishop Ben Kwashi of Jos, Nigeria, expressing his thanks to all who supported his family following the recent attacks on them.

Dear Fellow Pilgrims,

Today is one of the days in the last eight days that there is clear evidence that your prayers for me, Gloria, the family and the diocese is being answered. I have gathered strength to be able to write this letter to thank each one of you for taking up and sharing our pain with us, for all your mails and phone calls, but most importantly, for praying to the Lord to assist us in our trials. We ourselves have been on our knees for our Korean brethren who have been held hostage by the Talibans in Afghanistan and we are also praying for the people in Darfur ”“ Sudan, Congo and the entire Middle-east region.

It is fairly clear that the unwanted visitors who came to our house on the 24th of July 2007 about 2:00am were clear about their target: they came in with a ladder, sledge hammer, digger and other weapons .They came specifically to the back door, and spent at least 20 minutes before finally breaking in. This gave us some time to call for help. They had a fair idea where my bedroom was, broke the door and met me on my knees praying. They told me that they had come for me and that I should come with them. The rest is what you all know: God intervened, for even though they took me out to the place where they were to carry out their plan, the Lord changed their minds. They brought me back to my bedroom where God’s final victory was demonstrated, as I knelt to pray and read from the Bible Psalm 124 waiting for my death; a little while later Gloria joined me and we were praying together; about 10 minutes later they were gone. They took away valuables, all our cell”“phones, laptop. jewellery and left behind massive destruction.

This letter is to appreciate you all for your prayers, for your support, care and concern. We are living in difficult times all around the world, and we must ensure that our faith in Jesus Christ is firmly rooted and grounded in the word of truth, the scripture, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Read it all here. (And please DO read it all. The best part is the final section which we’ve not posted here.)

For background on the attack and the attempt on Bp. Kwashi’s life, read here.

Read it all.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:
The speech is now on the ACN website, and there you can watch the two videos that were shown as part of Bishop Duncan’s remarks.

hat tip to Stand Firm:

ADDRESS of the Right Reverend Robert Duncan, Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes to the Fourth Annual Council at Bedford, Texas, 30th July, A.D.2007.

I will save my flock, they shall no longer be a prey; and I will judge between sheep and sheep. And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them and be their shepherd. [Ezekiel 34:22-23]

David Anderson, John Guernsey, Andy Fairfield, Dave Roseberry, Martyn Minns, Dan Herzog, Alison Barfoot, Bill Cox, John Yates, Bill Attwood, Bill Cobb, Valarie Whitcomb, Dwight Duncan, Ron Jackson, Dave Bena, Bill Murdoch, Don Armstrong”¦ What do these believers all have in common? ”¦Great leaders, all. Yes, of course. One other thing, at least”¦ Each was a priest or bishop (four bishops in fact) of the Episcopal Church at the Network Council one year ago”¦ None is a leader of the Episcopal Church today. This seismic shift is the context in which we meet for this fourth Annual Council of the Anglican Communion Network.

One of the young, creative staffers in our Pittsburgh office, Chad Whittaker (many of you will know his Dad, who teaches New Testament at Trinity Seminary), produced a brief video last Holy Week. It begins with words of a written prophecy I was handed at Hope and a Future (November 2005) and then it shifts to early April 2007. I want to show it to you now.

[Good Friday Video Clip]

Ever so many of us have found ourselves living through an extended Good Friday. None of us, of course, have lived through anything like our Lord’s excruciating and singular Passion, but the emotional and spiritual depths of the present season have, for most of us, been like few other seasons of our lives. I shall never forget the darkness of the days and weeks beginning with last March’s House of Bishops Meeting. It was during those days at and after that Camp Allen meeting that I truly came to grips with the unavoidable fact that the denominational Church that had ”“ from infancy ”“ raised me, captured me, formed me and ordained me, no longer had any room for me, or any like me. How bitter the rejection! How total my failure!

Yes, we are all at different places on the Calvary journey as concerns our ministries in the Episcopal Church. But I suspect I can speak for all when I say that where we are is not where we had hoped to be. God, in His wisdom, has not used us to reform the Episcopal Church, to bring it back to its historic role and identity as a reliable and mainstream way to be a Christian. Instead the Episcopal Church has embraced de-formation ”“ stunning innovation in Faith and Order ”“ rather than reformation.

In whatever way God’s call on our lives is to be lived out in the months and years ahead, few in this hall anticipate that the Episcopal Church will turn around in the last days before September 30th, or that the Episcopal Church has any intention of leaving room for those of us whose commitments to “the Faith once delivered” created the Anglican Communion Network and have sustained its vision and its witness. Because our sense of order is such that we have always sought to be Christian first and Episcopalian next , we find ourselves on this present Way of the Cross. Such is the increasing de-formation of the denomination whose priests and bishops, whose laity and deacons, we have so faithfully been, whose vision once upon a time was like the one we still hold, of a Church that is truly evangelical, truly catholic, and truly pentecostal. This is the context in which we meet for this fourth Annual Council of the Anglican Communion Network.

[Video Clip on Network Mission]

Our Work in This Council

Since the earliest days of the Network, God has given us a clear vision of who we are to be: A biblical, missionary and uniting presence in North America. At last year’s Annual Council in Pittsburgh we focused on the first of the three words of our oft-rehearsed vision: biblical. Our theme was “A Reformation of Behavior,” and we looked at personal holiness as a hallmark that must come to characterize our life as faithful North American Anglicans. At the first Bedford Council two years ago, we focused on the second of the three words of our vision: missionary. We gave most of our time at that meeting to our Anglican Global Mission Partners and to the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, and we accepted a special partnership with the Diocese of Singapore for evangelization of some of the most unreached areas on the globe. This year our work in Council ”“ Bedford II, if you will ”“ has much the same focus as our very first Council at Plano, three and a half years ago. We focus on the third of the three words of the vision our God gave us from the beginning: uniting. Much of the work of this Fourth Annual Council focuses on our call to unity with other orthodox fragments ”“ virtually all of whom were once, like ourselves, mainstream Episcopalians. Proposals are before us to formalize, to ratify, a series of relationships that have come to be known as the Common Cause Partnership.

Three decades of fracture and disintegration characterized the life of orthodox Anglicans up until the Plano Council of January, 2004. None who were present at that organizing Council will ever forget the unity that permeated the decisions of that assembly. Every article of the Charter was unanimously approved. None of us had any expectation that anything like that would be possible. It was all God-given and God-breathed. None will forget the moment when a respectful way forward on the ordination of women emerged ”“ surely the high-point of God’s grace in that Council ”“ and we stood to sing the Doxology.

The charism God bestowed on us in that Plano Council has not departed. Thanks be to God! It has, of course, been sorely tried from time to time, not least in the crisis of Good Friday. But the charism has not been just for us. (God’s gifts never are “just for us.”) Confident that it was central to the vision of the Network ”“ and deeply moved by the blessings of the Council that chartered the Network and encouraged by my Episcopal colleague Ed Salmon ”“ I invited conversations with other jurisdictional and organizational leaders beginning in March of 2004. In June of 2004, six leaders pledged, in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, “to make common cause for a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America.” Initially six in the United States, Common Cause now has ten Partners in the U.S. and Canada. Five leadership roundtables have met and a first-ever Council of Bishops has been called. Key documents have been developed between the partners. Most of the partners have already approved the documents. Now it is our turn. The proposals do not yield jurisdictional autonomy, but they move us into more intentional federation. They move us closer to the longed-for day of a biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America, to the kind of “new ecclesiastical structure” called for by the primates of the Global South, and yearned for by the faithful Anglicans of this continent.

Last summer the Pittsburgh Council had a first look at the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership. Here at Bedford II the Steering Committee has placed that document and the Articles of the Common Cause Partnership before us for ratification. I heartily endorse these documents. They are not perfect, but they do take the next step. It has been the particular privilege and challenge of your Moderator to serve as Chair of the Common Cause Partnership since the beginning. A Common Cause Roundtable V in March the partners asked me to continue in that role, and I agreed to do so, with God’s help.

The Articles we are being asked to approve create a federation. None of our jurisdictional autonomy is ceded. The primates of the Anglican Communion have asked the American Episcopal Church to make an answer concerning the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communique. What the Common Cause Partnership does together is some part of this response. The Episcopal Church is walking apart. We propose to walk together. Little better communicates our message, and the reality that there is a recognizable and uniting partnership of mainstream Anglicans in North America, than the actions we are being asked to take.

In this context a word about the Windsor Bishops Coalition also seems appropriate. Again, in fulfillment of the Network’s vision, I asked Ed Salmon, after last year’s Network Council, to do what he could on the Network’s behalf to build a larger coalition of Episcopal Bishops, in hopes that the Episcopal Church might be turned back at the eleventh hour. During this past year, the Network Bishops have done everything we could to work with a broader Windsor Coalition within the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. In order not to abandon the wider coalition in its one last stand, the Network Bishops have agreed to take part in the upcoming meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the primates Steering Committee and Anglican Consultative Council. We do so, some of us at least, without any implied recognition of or submission to the American primate, without any diminishment of our appeal for Alternative Primatial Oversight, and without any expectation that the Episcopal House of Bishops will turn from the course so unequivocably embraced at their March meeting.

Achievements and Failures

So where are we?

Anyone reading the minutes of the Pittsburgh Council [included in your packets] will recognize that many of the hopes we expressed for the nature of our work this past year were not realized. Some of what we imagined the Steering Committee might do in peopling committees to look at liturgy and discipleship and such routine matters of normal church life was predicated on a hope for more ordinary times. Transitions in jurisdiction ”“ like those described as I began ”“ were among the factors that made this past year among the most tumultuous for our movement. Financial challenges ”“ largely occasioned as our most generous parish supporters faced their own challenges in transitions, lawsuits and loss of facilities ”“ were constant. Similar financial challenges have affected all our AGMP agencies. Many of us also found ourselves just worn down and worn out by the continuing struggle. As the Deans are fond of quipping: “It is good that we don’t all want to quit on the same day.” But we didn’t quit. As always, we helped each other. God helped us. Even in the darkest times, the work went forward.

A Finance Committee was organized during the course of the year and senior statesman Bill Roemer of Pittsburgh became our Treasurer. At last there are budgets and audits to look at together. Anglican Relief and Development Fund was spun off and has become the Relief and Development agency of most of the Common Cause Partners. Succeeding Dr. Peter Moore, its Chairman is now an Anglican Mission priest, Mike Murphy. Can. Nancy Norton remains its Director.

In the spring, the weekly meeting of the Moderator’s (Network) Cabinet was suspended in favor of a Common Cause Cabinet meeting, necessary to preparations for the September Common Cause Bishops Council. The Steering Committee has continued to meet, though most often without my presence. The stretching for us all is tremendous. Strains, more than ever, affect the workings of the Network Bishops, though we are not divided in our assessment of a failed Episcopal Church. The Network Deans have continued their extraordinary leadership, though as we end this year between Councils only one of the six ”“ the Forward in Faith Dean ”“ remains within the Episcopal Church.

The staff in the Pittsburgh office, like the staff assistants in the Convocations, have done extraordinary service. Can. Daryl Fenton, who has kept me and countless others in good humor and on track in the toughest of times deserves, with all the others, our deep gratitude. The ministry initiatives in Children and Youth, in Evangelism, in International Mission and in Church Planting have been the best of works in the worst of times. New churches continue to be planted. The Children and Youth initiative has developed a cutting edge program for training lay workers on-line with Cambridge University. The evangelism initiative has presented three regional conferences, already helping hundreds to better share the good news in daily life, with seven more conferences ”“ coming to a neighborhood near you ”“ this fall and winter.

The remarkable thing is, we have had the leaders we have needed for the challenges we have faced. One can only conclude that our God has been in this.

One great triumph of this past year is the provision of a domestic episcopate for the clergy and congregations that have left the Episcopal Church and moved into the Network’s International Conference, now numbering well over one hundred congregations across the United States. Bp. Bill Cox was the first. He serves the congregations of Oklahoma under Southern Cone. Bp. Andy Fairfield was next. He became a bishop of the Church of Uganda in June. He serves those ICon congregations that call on him. More significant still are the decisions of Kenya and Uganda to make new bishops for the work in the United States: Bill Attwood, Bill Murdoch, and John Guernsey. These join the AMiA and CANA bishops in service to what are now several hundred Anglican congregations in the U.S. (and Canada), all of whom will be at the September Common Cause Council. To all of this we expect to see our brother Bill Illgenfritz added. Forward in Faith North America has reaffirmed their nomination of Fr. Bill to serve that constituency as a flying bishop, and I have committed myself to working to find a Provincial ally to make it so. In the choice of these bishops we also see some who are clearly in favor of the ordination of women and some who are opposed to it, and the unity and commitments forged at our first Network Council shapes our ongoing life without reduction.

Another significant development since last Annual Council are the deepening Common Cause regional alliances. I have been privileged to meet with four of these regional groupings since last December. Over and over the message is the same: “We all want to be one again.” A biblical, missionary and uniting vision for Anglicans in North America, by God’s grace, is owned by countless believers and fellow-workers, as well as by those who meet in this hall.

LAST THINGS

I have served as Moderator for three and one-half years. My term ends with this Annual Council. It has been the hardest thing I have ever done. Your efforts and your prayers have sustained me. And our God has been good to us beyond measure.

David Anderson has served as Network Secretary during these same three and one-half years. His term also ends with this Council. None of us will forget, and the history of the movement must record, his leadership in bringing the financial and administrative resources of the American Anglican Council to enable the first eighteen months of the life of the Anglican Communion Network. Few acts of generosity in organizational life have a parallel in this great act of benefaction to birth the Network.

We must also elect a treasurer and one half of our Steering Committee. To all who have served we express our gratitude and appreciation: whether on Cabinet or Steering Committee or in any capacity for the good of the whole. The sacrifice represented in the efforts of those who have served us is remarkable in the extreme. To those who have stood with us as congregations, vestries, dioceses, colleagues, friends, confessors, intercessors, families and especially spouses we express a similarly vast thankfulness.

I began with words from the prophet Ezekiel. God is judging shepherds and is judging between sheep. His promise is to save His flock. His promise is that His sheep will no longer be a “prey,” either to unfaithful shepherds or to fat sheep (or to wolves). His servant David, our Lord Jesus Christ, is the true and trustworthy shepherd. We, in the Anglican Communion Network, propose to follow Him, even through the valley of the shadow of death. For Jesus is our Way, our Truth, our Life. We can do no other.

The concerns I have listed above do not diminish the respect and support I give to the Network and its leadership, of which I remain a member. My concerns, rather,derive from my desire that we hold our witness together, and that we do so in away that not only maintains but garners trust. We have a work and a witness we are called to do together,and I pray it is together that we do it.

But concerns are still concerns. From my own perspective, I cannot see any way through the current disputes and threatened divisions other than persistent and good-willed common counsel on the part of the Communion’s representative leaders done openly and with as wide a reach as possible. If Lambeth cannot meet and agree, then who will listen? If the Primates cannot meet and agree,in conjunction with Lambeth, nothing will be done together. If the ACC cannot consider and respond to the executive desires of the Primates, there will be no common following. If Primates do not take counsel and seek agreement with all their bishops, and bishops with all their dioceses, there is nothing but individual conscience and passion determining all things. And if, in all these things, the Scriptures of Christ are not placed at the center of prayer, discussion, and discernment, there is nothing about which to counsel that will bear the mark of the Spirit’s direction. And other than this last ”“ and most important! ”“ element, we already have the structures by which to carry through with such common decision-making, if we but discipline ourselves to submit ourselves to them in faith, hope, and love. Then perhaps we shall have made room to listen to the Word of God.

As I said, I believe these kinds of concerns need to be aired and debated openly, by those whose names are known, by those who have a stake in the outcome, and by the full gathering of those granted authority to take counsel and make decisions for the church. They should be debated, but they should also and even more be subjected to the wisdom of gathered representatives of our churches, and not pursued by one group or another regardless of the views and decisions of others. The Episcopal Church as a whole has been an egregious model of such brazen disregard, and the model is one to be rejected wholly and utterly.

It is not that the gathering together of traditional Anglicans in North America is not a worthy and evangelical goal. It is, and many of us would welcome and are willing to work for such a goal. The AMiA, for instance ”“ and one can say analogous things about other parties represented in Common Cause — has had for several years now a strong witness in evangelism and church-planting that is needed by all of us, and their full integration back into the Communion would prove a spiritual gift for mission that all of us need and that would do honor to the Gospel. But there are realities on the ground that require serious resolution for this to happen fruitfully, and that resolution requires the engagement of many parties and peoples in honest and common discussion on the basis of shared prayer and humble listening within the context of the Scriptures. What is one to do, for instance, of a long-standing lawsuit between a current Network bishop and a current AMiA bishop? How resolve the disagreements and even bitterness that exists between conservative bishops and AMiA plants and splits within their borders? What of the deep theological and ecclesiological differences that exist between many Network bishops and those of the AMiA, let alone other non-Network traditionalists? And this pertains to North America only, and has not yet touched on the divides and disagreements and misunderstandings that exist, on this matter, around the Communion, and with Lambeth in particular, where a trail of bitter denunciations cannot simply be papered over. It is not enough for this or that group to formulate position papers and declare their views and commitments apart from the whole (this includes the Network, ACI, Camp Allen, Common Cause or anyone else), and then to expect that these views will persuade or bear converting authority. The cause we have in common at present is the cause for common consultation, discernment,decision, and only then, action, so that our work “side by side” for the Gospel is founded on the “common mind” of the Church in Christ (Phil. 1:27).

Read it all.

Here is an excerpt from the Presidential address today by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, to the Church of England General Synod:

As a church, we need to learn once again to become risk-takers, people who take risks for the Gospel, who take risks for Christ, who take risks in the service of God and one another. We have to take risks, in order to make the journey. We discover courage by doing courageous, God-like actions. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son”. An act at a particular time and place. It is the sin of the world that Christ takes away. Action!

So what are we afraid of? And what are the consequences of our fearfulness? The result of fear can be dangerous, fear itself can create its own risk. Because often when we’re reacting out of fear we don’t behave with courage and determination and grace, we become defensive, we behave badly.

And this Bad Behaviour doesn’t only afflict us as individuals but at every level, as churches, as nations. The language of fear has become the language of international relations; worldwide, a new book on terrorism is published every 6 hours!

Fear has begun to shape the minds and the decisions of those who take counsel for the nations. As Jim Wallis has noted, “The politics of fear can have disastrous results in both foreign and domestic policy. To name the face of evil in the brutality of terrorist attacks is good theology, but to say simply that they are evil and we are good is bad theology that can lead to dangerous politics. The threat of terrorism does not overturn Christian ethics.” It’s mercy, loving-kindness, deeds of mutual charity, reciprocal solidarity, walking in God’s ways of love and justice.

And our fear of terrorism can lead us to false conclusions about our Muslim neighbours.

The challenge we face isn’t about moderate Muslims versus so-called radicalised Muslims; the challenge is about Islam being used for quasi-political ends at whose heart is getting into paradise now by suicide bombing propelled by a hatred of the West and its way of life. Attempting to avenge past hurts by piling them on present problems.

Therefore the question is in fact about our discernment between those Muslims who, being loyal to the holy Qur’an, are dedicated to a vision of Allah who is merciful, holy and kind – in contrast to those who tendentiously make Allah vengeful, violent and merciless ”“ promising paradise now through acts of brutality and mass murder. In remaking God in their own image, they commit the ultimate act of blasphemy.

In the same way we Christians must beware of taking the holiness of God to imply that his wrath and judgement are out to destroy sinners instead of redeeming them, loving them and forgiving them. For those who follow the man of Galilee who was crucified, self-righteousness must die at his Cross. It’s from the Cross that the light of God shines forth upon the world in its fullest splendour. And as David Bosch has said (in Transforming Mission) “The Church is an inseparable union of the divine and the dusty.”

We are still human and the chorus to the song ”˜Anthem’ by the Canadian writer, Leonard Cohen reminds us that there can be a point to our lack of perfection:

“Ring the bells
That still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.”

We must resist the temptation to abandon Christian principles of justice to those who suggest that fear is a better teacher than Christ Himself. For us, the opposite of fear isn’t courage, but the gift of wisdom, knowledge, discernment and insight from the Holy Spirit.

Sin harms the individual believer. Heresy (the wrong understanding of God) harms the Church. Idolatry destroys both the believer and the Church and is the cause of both sin and heresy. Our mission, like that of Jesus, is to confront idolatry.

So, what are we afraid of? Are we afraid of the loss of identity? Of a diminished sense of who we are and what it means to be us? You might think so, given the amount of time our society at present devotes, in its public conversation, to the question of what it means to be British.

And as a church, are we afraid of the future? Are we afraid of change? Are we privately content with the comfortable certainties of decline?

Or are we afraid of the public square? Of the public conversation about faith and society, difference and identity? In a space which we once confidently thought belonged to us as of right, how do we preach the words of life afresh in our communities of diverse ethnicities, cultures and peoples of other faiths present; and in a generation that is sceptical, cynical, fearful?

The full text is here (Church of England website)

=======
Update: The audio of this speech is here:

I know Kendall already posted the link to this speech in his post on the passage of the Covenant resolution (2 entries below), but now having read Bp. Michael Nazir-Ali’s speech, I wanted to post it in full to ensure wide readership. The text is from Anglican Mainstream:

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali’s (Rochester) speech to synod on the Anglican Covenant.

I speak as the Chair of the House of Bishops Theological Group which has the task of preparing the response to the Draft Covenant sent out by the Primates.

I shall vote for this motion when the time comes. It seems to have some rules for living together and if a Covenant is to embody them, then so be it, even if the nature and extent of it have still to be determined. But a Covenant “imposed from above” will not answer every question we have about our Church and Communion.

The Church becomes ”˜church’ by the working out of the Faith ”˜once and for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our common mindedness has to do with having the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5) and the Spirit, leading us into all truth, continually reminds us of the words and things of Jesus and glorifies him (John 15.26, 16: 12-15). The ministry of truth and unity is grounded squarely on the word of God (”˜Consecrate them in the truth, your word is truth’ John 17.17) said Jesus and such a ministry makes sure that the Apostolic Teaching is passed on from person to person, community to community and down the ages.

The self-organising power of the Gospel produces a truly evangelical church. Those who are called to preaching and teaching have the positive task of bringing the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) to their people. But they also have a negative task which is to maintain the Church in its indefectibility, so that the gates of hell do not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). They must make sure that the Church does not lose the core of the Gospel.

We have to ask, whether this ”˜self-organising power of the Gospel’ has ever been allowed full expression in the Anglican tradition. Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner, two American theologians, have said that Anglicans have always been compromised by ”˜unsanctified council’. Their Erastian tendencies have allowed the State and the culture to constrain the freedom of the Gospel in forming the Church. The tendency to capitulate to culture has been exported to other parts of the world. Both here and elsewhere the idea of the national Church has obscured the primacy of the local and the universal. But the logic of catholicity has also been retained and the question is now whether it will be allowed full expression in its own integrity.

Will the instruments of Communion be effective and united in their gathering and working? Will decisions made by the Primates be upheld or repudiated immediately afterwards? If the Lambeth Conference is not a council or synod of Bishops, what is it and why should anyone come to it? What kind of authority does it have? We are looking here not so much for juridical or legislative authority but for spiritual, doctrinal and moral. We should want our leaders to lead and for spiritual leaders to lead spiritually.

It may be that Anglicanism is not a confessional body but it certainly should be a confessing one: upholding, proclaiming and living the Apostolic Faith. Its weaknesses need to be recognised and it should be strengthened in its vocation. We are looking then for a covenant which will express the Apostolic Faith, enable us to come a common mind which is that of Christ, and free us to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. The Covenant may be the first step in recovering our integrity, but it cannot be the last word.

Bishop Tony Burton of the Diocese of Saskatchewan in Canada has written his clergy following Canada’s General Synod. Here’s a key section:

We talked a lot at the General Synod about the implications of baptism, that Christ has grafted us into a whole new set of complicated relationships in his body to which we needed to respond. Nobody was in doubt that the body is fevered and disoriented at the moment. Our place in the Anglican Communion was never very far from our minds.

From one perspective this was a General Synod at which nothing happened””at least nothing of obvious consequence, blazing illumination or historic moment. The Synod tidied and tweaked and consolidated earlier initiatives, rekindled some old missionary loves, and decided, somewhat grudgingly, to give its troubled marriage to the Anglican Communion another chance. A few trial balloons were floated and referred away to committees. We elected an honorable man as Primate in a vote for continuity. We welcomed a new National Indigenous Bishop as a harbinger of good things to come but he had already been with us for a while and was already a much-loved member of the family. We had lunch with our Lutheran relatives. No nettles were grasped, no Rubicons were crossed, no sacred cows were slain, no blood was left on the floor, nobody stormed out.

In short, it was a miracle.

It takes only one match to begin a conflagration in a dry forest. [1] Our Communion has been drying out for a long time. In Winnipeg, we were all smokers, and a few of us lit up, but we went home with the old growth intact, hoping for rain.

This was a disappointment to many people for a variety of reasons. On the left and the right, there were plenty of people who wanted to witness the final rupture, the definitive apostasy, the moment of liberation, the beginning of a new world, clean and free from that bearded old wood.

It came close. After having passed a much-amended procedural motion which ended up stating the obvious (that same-sex blessings are not in the Creeds), the bishops defeated by two votes a motion to allow local dioceses to authorize the blessing of committed same-sex unions. Whether one agreed with this decision or not, there is no question that it bought time for the Anglican Church of Canada to find a way to walk together with the Anglican Communion. Encouragingly, from the beginning of this debate to the end of it, there was nothing but good will shown to Anglicans with same-sex attractions. Their full membership and inclusion in the Church, which derives from baptism, was simply not at issue.

Our condition as a Church and Communion remains grave. The doctors quarrel among themselves. We agree on neither diagnosis nor cure. Can the doctrine of Christ be separated like a yolk from its egg? Perhaps on our knees, in fear and trembling, in a theological environment galaxies away from the aridities of this present generation, but surely not by a vote of hands in a political forum.

The full letter is here.

To: Clergy, Members of Diocesan Council and Standing Committee
From: The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf
Re: The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding

As many of you know, The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding is an Episcopal priest who has recently professed her faith in Islam. Dr. Redding is canonically resident in the Diocese of Rhode Island, though she has not served here for over twenty years.

After meeting with her I issued a Pastoral Direction giving her the opportunity to reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam. During the next year she is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon. Other aspects of the Pastoral Direction will remain private.

I am sending this e-mail to you because the continued web-site coverage suggests that I be as clear as possible with those exercising leadership in our diocese.

====
Update: The Living Church has an article with the news here.