In a time of judgment the truth is revealed in moments like this, and it can be quite painful. So why does the New York Times get it, the Times-Picayune get it, Integrity get it, and people in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church who should know better not get it? It is because they do not understand the depth of the breach that needed to be repaired in the first place. The Primates sought an unequivocal commitment because for a marriage in temporary separation if you do not invest yourself completely in what the marriage counselor asked for, it will not work and you get a divorce. The stakes are simply too high, and the damage is too great, for a negotiation, quid pro quo, well I might, sort of, for a short time do this, and while I say this (I will still do sometimes do that), oh and by the way, I insist on my spouse doing this and that which I want because I have terms here too.

From the Tanzania Communique:

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

They said not a word about it. Not one–KSH.

The voice of self-proclaimed prophecy has been replaced by the murmur of expediency.

A great opportunity was lost.

What was it I asked at the beginning of the meeting: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen? They opted for the second.

As is well known, the Episcopal Church radically altered its theology and practice at its General Convention in 2003. As a result a significant amount of unrest has gone on in the TEC community which the leadership has tried to downplay or deny.

It is important to understand that those who are deeply opposed to the new theology fall into not one but four groups, each of which is engaged in different things.

(1) There are people who are voting with their feet, and departing from the Episcopal Church to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Free Church Protestantism.

According to the Christian Century, “the Episcopal Church has suffered a net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years “with homosexuality issues fueling the departures.” Kirk Hadaway, the denomination’s director of research, noted that “it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.” The numbers for 2006 have not been released yet, but they are sure to show this trend continuing, and indeed probably increasing as the departure of large portions of whole parishes or indeed nearly all of some parishes begin to be reflected in the numbers.

Also, the level of struggle is well indicated by a recent national church publication in which we learn:

“The proportion [of parishes] with excellent or good financial health declined from 56% to 32% between 2000 and 2005.”

And: “The proportion in some or serious financial difficulty almost doubled, increasing from 13% in 2000 to 25% in 2005.”

(2) There are whole parishes or portions of parishes which through different means have sought to leave the Episcopal Church but to keep their ties to the Anglican Communion through a relationship with another Anglican Province. At present, these groups are in a state of flux and in seemingly nearly constant motion but it is possible to delineate some sense of their numbers:

Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda), some 100-115 parishes
CANA (Nigeria), some 60 parishes
Uganda, some about 30 parishes
Kenya, some 20-30 parishes
Southern Cone, some at least 50 parishes

Now, not all of these parishes consists of former members of TEC as some are church plants, but many of them contain sections of former TEC folks and in a number of cases nearly the whole parish came over from TEC (Christ Church, Plano, Texas, being a recent example, in that case of a church who joined AMIA/Rwanda)

(3) There are parishes or sections of parishes who are on the verge of deciding along the lines of group 2 in some way by the end of 2007/early 2008, depending on the outcome of the Tanzania Communique, the House of Bishops meeting, and the response of the Anglican leadership thereto. Saint Clements, El Paso, one of the largest parishes in the diocese of the Rio Grande, just voted by an overwhelming margin to leave TEC on Sunday, September 16th. It needs to be emphasized that many of these people and parishes do not wish to depart, but feel if the Anglican Communion leadership continues to fail to provide a safe place for them, they have no other choice.

It must also be noted that three dioceses Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin, appear to be considering moves in this direction. I am not aware of any time in the history of the Episcopal Church when three dioceses as whole dioceses sought to consider these kinds of momentous decisions. (It will of course be noted that the dioceses are not monolithic-no diocese is-and there are smaller groups within the diocese that feel differently. Nonetheless the contemplated collective diocesan action is significant).

(4) There is a considerable group of other individuals, parishes and dioceses who are completely opposed to the new theology and practice of TEC’s leadership, but who wish to find a way to stay connected to the Anglican Communion as they continue to stand in radical opposition, and are not sure what the way forward is. Two examples would be the diocese of South Carolina, and the parish of Saint Martin’s Houston, which claims the largest membership in the country and which made clear in its last call process that their new rector would need to stand solidly for the theology of the Anglican Communion and the Windsor Report.

The national leadership’s way of treating this problem is to give the most narrow definition as possible to group two, and then to try to minimize the problem.

Unfortunately, for example we see things like this:

Note on Dioceses, Congregations and Church Structure

· Dioceses and congregations remain part of the Episcopal Church even when local leaders and/or a number of parishioners opt to leave the denomination as a matter of personal choice.
· Dioceses are created by the General Convention and cannot be dissolved without action of the General Convention in accordance with the provisions of the churchwide constitution and canons. Congregations, likewise, are created by a local diocese and continue within that structure unless otherwise decided by the local bishop in consultation with other elected diocesan leaders.
· According to a September 2007 update from director of research Kirk Hadaway, out of some 7600 total Episcopal Church congregations, located inside and outside the U.S., since 2003:
32 have LEFT–and by that we mean the majority of the congregation expressed a desire or voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church, the bishop declared the congregation abandoned and notified the national office, where the church is now listed as non-filing/closed.
23 have VOTED TO LEAVE–meaning a significant number, usually including the clergy, have expressed a desire to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.

(And one immediately notes in passing that the national church office managed to get THESE numbers updated and out before the House of Bishops meeting, but that they still do not have the numbers out from 2006 in terms of overall membership numbers. Hmmmmm. I wonder why.)

Or this, which ran in April 2007 with the headline “Episcopal Bishop says few leaving over same-sex issues”:

The Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop on Wednesday downplayed the notion of a denominational schism over homosexuality, saying only a tiny fraction of congregations have moved to break away.

In an interview, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the congregations had “gotten a lot of attention and been very noisy,” but accounted for less than 1 percent of the country’s total number of parishes, which she put at 7,500.

“The Episcopal Church is alive and well,” she said. Jefferts Schori was in Virginia Beach on Wednesday to speak at the Episcopal Communicators annual meeting at The Cavalier Hotel.

You can see what is going on, they are playing games with numbers and categories. “Few” leaving actually means “congregations,” and congregations means congregations defined as a whole. This is collapsing all four categories into a very narrow and misleading picture of group number 2.

People know that in reality it is very difficult to get whole parishes or dioceses to take significant decisions about ANYTHING, much less something as important as this. Given the degree of opposition and hostility faced in numerous quarters from diocesan and national leadership, and given how many Anglican reasserters (such as your blog convenor) have been advocating a stay and be opposed but be faithful stance, it is actually surprising that the numbers from the four categories are this large.

The key point is, taken together the four groups illustrate a VERY SERIOUS problem. Good leadership owns the actual situation and then tries to deal with it, it does not try to redefine it narrowly and pretend it is less than it is–KSH.

Update: the above article was written before and independently of this one by Simon Sarmiento but the information seems to be of a similar type.

He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children;

that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children,

so that they should set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments;

and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God….

In spite of all ….[God did for them] they still sinned; despite his wonders they did not believe.

So he made their days vanish like a breath, and their years in terror.

–Psalm 78:5-7; 32-33
————————————————————————
He went in, and stood before his master, and Eli’sha said to him, “Where have you been, Geha’zi?” And he said, “Your servant went nowhere.”

But he said to him, “Did I not go with you in spirit when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Was it a time to accept money and garments, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, menservants and maidservants?

Therefore the leprosy of Na’aman shall cleave to you, and to your descendants for ever.” So he went out from his presence a leper, as white as snow.

–2 Kings 5:25-27
——————————————————————

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans.

–1 Corinthians 5:1

————————————————————–

Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

–Matthew 5:37

=======

[Note from the elves, you can read all the lectionary passages easily on one page here (in the ESV translation)]

Does it strike anyone else that as General Convention 2006 went down to the wire on the very last day, and the production of the unanimously supported Tanzania Communique also went down to the last part of the last session on the last day, that this House of Bishops meeting is headed in the same direction? I wonder what that really means–KSH.

From yesterday’s livebog of the news Conference by Matt Kennedy:

NPR: But specifically what about ssbs [same sex blessings] that are occurring in diocese”¦the communiqué wants them to stop.

BRUNO: as I said we are going to be dealing with the specific questions asked of us by the Communion

NYT: How is the communiqué different from the desires of conservatives who wish for you to reverse course on sexuality issues. Doesn’t the communiqué ask you to reverse course in the same way. How can you distinguish between what the conservatives want you to do and the Communique asks you to do?

Bruno: You have asked whether we will continue the process of General Convention. The fact is that we have never authorized same sex unions.

NYT: it happens on the diocesan level all the time.

Bruno: Not in my diocese. It does not happen without my permission.

—————————————————————-

There are many bishops who have not formally authorized ceremonial rites for gay unions, but who nevertheless allow priests to perform them….

“Blessings happen, sure,” said Bishop [Mark] Sisk of New York. “But I didn’t authorize them.”

The New York Times, February 21, 2007

——————————————————————

According to Cheri Wetzel’s report from earlier at this New Orleans House of Bishops meeting:

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane Australia, spoke to the House, telling them that they must reassure the Communion that they will live into the resolutions passed at General Convention last year. He asked what the rest of the Communion was to think when they vote to refrain from authorizing same sex blessings and 14 bishops quietly (but publicly) authorize rites to be used in their diocese and give permission to their clergy to perform same sex marriages as a pastoral care issue. Aspinall asked, “What good is your vote? How do we trust you?”

Bishop Aspinall’s question still stands. The fact that we are seeing reruns of the Bishop Sisk movie from February from Bishop Bruno on the second to last day of this House of Bishops meeting in September (never mind all of the other showings) is not encouraging. This is not a game where it all comes down to what the meaning of is is. The movie needs to stop, that is why the Tanzania Communique used the language of “local pastoral provision” for same sex blessings in the first place–KSH.

The Bishop of Atlanta says tomorrow’s statement(s) will be clear and unambiguous. This has not been the pattern of this church in the past, but I will be delighted to be surprised.

Here is one way I plan to evaluate this call for clarity: will it be as clear on the things that upset and concern them as TEC Bishops as it is on those things that upset and concern their sisters and brothers throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion?

An example. It is no secret that a number of TEC bishops are very, very angry about the increasing number of TEC parishes or portions of parishes affiliating with other member Provinces of the Anglican Comunion. I was told by one participant that one proposal being bandied about this week had to to with this subject. If I understood him correctly, the idea was a plea to global Anglican leaders to refuse to recognize any ordination, congregation or ecclesial entity within the Episcopal Church as being properly related and in communion with Canterbury unless certain TEC conditions were met.

Now, please let me be clear. I am not saying this will be in anything produced tomorrow (there were and are a lot of suggestions and drafts and sections of drafts running around) I am basing this on notes of a phone conversation.

But I think the language is unambiguous. The Americans feel threatened that they will lose their Anglican franchise here. So they want any ordination, parish, or ecclesial entity (mission? missionary society?) affiliated overseas to be somehow deligitimized according to their standards.

To me it sounds unambiguous. I would say ordination, congregation or ecclesial entity pretty much covers it, wouldn’t you?

What is the point? When TEC leaders want to be clear they can be.

I am watching not only for clarity, but for consistent clarity–KSH.

Maybe it is good that I am writing this just after getting off the elliptical. Tomorrow it appears two written statements will come from the House of Bishops. The situation is fluid.

Predictions are to be treated with skepticism.

The documents will be important, but so will how we respond to them.

There have been a number of occasions recently like this where a key document or statement has come out, and the response has been, shall we say, less than satisfactory. Therefore there needs to be some preparation on our part so as to try to react in a Christian manner. Herewith some suggestions:

(1) Please try to read the actual text itself and concentrate on the language the Bishops used. I am sorry if this seems obvious but my Mom was an English teacher–you would be amazed at how little it actually occurs. Who are the worst people to do a Bible study with? Seminarians. Why? Because they have the most deep seated ideas of what the text says before they read it. It is vital that the text be heard on its own terms.

(2) Try to draw conclusions yourself FROM THE TEXT before getting your head clouded with what others think. Be aware that some of the early reactions will be wrong.

(3) When you consider others reactions, read from a variety of sources. You should regularly be visiting reappraiser and reasserter sites, writers you agree with and authors who drive you crazy.

(4) Make your early evaluations tentatively. “It seems to be saying that,” “what I hear the statement saying is,” are the kinds of things I would prefer to hear.

(5) Be aware that every statement like this goes through a process of sifting. Give it at least three days. There is an earthquake, there are aftershocks, and then things settle down.

(6) Expect the discernment to be a corporate activity. We still seek to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and we need one another. May the way we respond demonstrate this–KSH.

P.S. Pray that the server works!

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church pledges itself in covenant to refrain from making local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in their dioceses until and unless a new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges and will discipline any bishop who permits local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in his or her diocese.

Note carefully that this language has a time period specified, it uses the language of the Tanzania Communique (“local pastoral provision for…blessings”) and the Windsor Report, AND there is discipline within the province for those who defy the covenantal pledge.

My understanding is that there were four, and in the public domain there is only one. Could the powers that be not release all of them into the public domain if possible?

Mark says:

Almost everything we see coming out is rehash of old positions. I think things are stuck and that some who believe their job is to rescue us all from stuck positions will put forward compromises that will be rejected. However, what is needed is not compromise, but promise – a new beginning for life together, where most of us can say, “Not farewell, but fare forward voyagers.”

I agree (it does not happen all that often). I keep thinking of that AA statement the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and to expect different results.

Any attempt to put out a mushy statement and then have people go home and do what they have done before will be a disaster. And that has been the pattern again and again.

A system that is stuck needs a breakthrough; a radical proposal that actually creates space, movement, and offers real hope for the future to all as well as calling for sacrifice from all. Pray with me for that.

My brother and I both came up to Lake George to surprise him for #75. It would be important anyway, but has special meaning since Mom died earlier this year in March–KSH.

By request making this sticky. Look below for new blog entries. Also please note: Kendall has posted two updates to the original blog entry. See the end of the post.
I believe very strongly that one of the many tragic aspects of this whole Episcopal Church debacle in the last five years is that not only was the decision in 2003 wrong (and the way it was made wrong) but that nearly every major decision made by the TEC leadership since then has made it worse. The hard part about this is that when you keep failing to offer a sufficiently radical solution to a problem, the next time you face it it requires an even more radical solution.

I certainly wish to salute what the Presiding Bishop said in New Orleans: none of us is without blame in this mess. I have been trying to insist on this since General Convention 2003 and then my first address at Plano one: ALL of us are under judgment.

Perhaps, like me, you are wondering about Archbishop Rowan Williams’ calling for ‘room to maneuver’ and if there is any way forward now which is in the direction of a real, serious solution.

For myself, I will consider those in New Orleans serious when they consider offering the Anglican Communion something like this statement:

We realize we have caused huge damage to the whole Anglican Communion and therefore, we, as a body, voluntarily withdraw from coming to Lambeth 2008.

Now please note this means ALL the TEC Bishops. No exceptions. It would allow Dr. Williams to get nearly all (perhaps actually all?) the rest of the Communion to Lambeth, and it would show a sense of corporate responsibility for the wrong.

Yes, I know it is not perfect. I also know that it would only be PART of a solution and that there are many other questions which would have to be addressed. I also know it would only happen by divine intervention.

But only things LIKE THIS will really get us anywhere given the degree of damage, alienation, confusion and struggle.

I am praying for something along these lines because it will be a real tragedy if the third largest Christian family in the world falls into further disarray.

I see a lot of despair, anger, frustation and bewilderment out there. What I would like to see more of is constructive proposals for actually moving us forward. If you do not like my idea, then what is yours? Please make sure to propose something sufficiently radical which also might be achievable given the constraints. It is not easy, but it is important–KSH.

Update: FatherJake has taken the time to respond and Christopher Wells has some thoughts as well.

Another update: Marshall Scott had a lot of thoughts about this earlier of which (apologies, Marshall) I was unaware.

Update 3 [this one by the elves]: More discussion of Kendall’s proposal:
Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm
Giles Goddard at Inclusive Church
Jody Howard at Quo Vadis
Fr. Greg Jones at Anglican Centrist

from here:

The AP wanted to know, “who is going to decide whether the Episcopal Church has responded to the Dar Es Salaam Communique”¦?” Bishop Rabb said, “it is the Primates who will have to decide that.”

I agree. The Primates asked for the Windsor Report, they received it and modified it slightly in Dromantine, and then in response to the TEC’s response to Windsor and Dromantine, they issued the Tanzania Communique. Now the American House of Bishops is meeting in response to the Primates Tanzania Communique and before their September 30th deadline. So where is the Primates meeting on the Anglican Communion schedule? That would seem to be quite important–KSH.

I am travelling today, and will be able to say more about it later–it has to do with personal matters. In answer to incessant questions I am not in or going to New Orleans, but am following it very closely.

Please do us a favor and if your bishop provides any written communciation about their sense of things to his or her diocese email it on to us as it would be good to provide a variety of perspectives from that source if possible–KSH.

If you read the Bible carefully, you may observe that the prophets reserve some of their strongest condemnations for lack of honesty””before God and before others. These people honor me with their lips, Isaiah says, but their hearts are far from me. The God of reality wants his people to face the reality about God, our world and ourselves, and we do nearly everything in our power to avoid it.

All this brings us to the central question facing the House of Bishops meeting this week in New Orleans: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen?

Again and again in Minneapolis in 2003 we heard that God is doing a new thing and that the gospel of justice demanded that we must change our teaching to say that persons in non-celibate same sex unions are appropriate models for Christian leadership. But now that the Archbishop of Canterbury is coming to town and there might be serious consequences, a number of bishops are coming to the meeting like Monty Hall seeking to play “Let’s Make a Deal!!” Instead of owning the new theology they have embraced, they are going to hide behind words and phrases which say one thing while a number of them believe and do something else.

You can arrange the subterfuge yourself. First they will say as Bishop Parsley said to the New York Times this week:

The primates want us to say that we don’t approve public rites of blessing, and we have not done that. They don’t want us to approve gay bishops in committed relationships, and the 2006 general convention resolution makes that unlikely. Basically, what I’m saying is that what they are asking is essentially already the case.

So some are going to claim they are already doing two of the three things they have been asked, and then you add some kind of new Primatial Vicar proposal and–tada!–the institutional smokescreen is up.

Ah, but we need to pay attention to the man behind the curtain because what you see in the Episcopal Church is not what you get.

First, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the key issue of whether there is “local pastoral provision” for same sex blessings in certain parts of the Episcopal Church. Here is the wording in the relevant section of the Tanzania communique:

There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

The activist group Integrity says it knows of 11 dioceses that have official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships:
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware [Bishop Wright’s office will only provide a copy to other bishops, apparently]
Long Island
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington

Beyond these, there are numerous others which allow for blessings ”“ Newark, [see also here], Los Angeles, Massachusetts [see also here, and here], New York, and the list could go on.

For example the just consecrated new bishop of Olympia said just recently:

he is comfortable continuing Bishop Warner’s stance of letting individual priests decide whether to perform blessing ceremonies for same-sex unions.

The other key phrase is the phrase from Lambeth 1998 1.10, that Anglicans

…cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions

The Bishop of New Jersey just said recently in a New Jersey newspaper:

We in the Diocese of New Jersey respect the discernment of the local congregations as they search for and call clergy to serve in leadership. All clergy candidates are subject to the same reference and background checks, including conversations with the bishops and deployment officers of those applying from other dioceses. Among the questions that I always ask is the following, based upon one of the ordination vows in our Book of Common Prayer: “Is this priest’s personal life a wholesome example to the people?”
I believe that gay and lesbian clergy, living in monogamous, faithful and stable unions, are a wholesome example to the people of our churches. Once assured of that, I welcome congregations to call such clergy to lead them in their life and ministry.
I have met the Rev. Debra Bullock, who comes with the very highest recommendations from her seminary faculty and from the clergy and lay leaders where she served in Chicago. She is a faithful, dedicated, hard-working, warm and talented priest. She will bring new life and new energy to St. Barnabas in Villas and to St. Mary’s, Stone Harbor.

This IS legitimizing a non-celibate same sex relationship for someone ordained, and it is against the mind and teaching of the Anglican Communion.

Second, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the inadequacy of resolution B033 as passed in a hurried and confusing manner on the last day of General Convention 2006. [note from elves: and dissented to immediately by a group of up to 20 bishops, and rejected by at least 9 dioceses at their diocesan conventions last year]

It is very important to quote over and over again the key section of the Windsor Report which invites TEC to

effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (Windsor Report 134)

Notice three things. First, it is a specific aspect of the person’s life in view””their involvement in a non-celibate same sex union. Second, it is both a moratorium on the election and on the consent to such a person. So it is not just the consent process which is spoken about. Third, VERY IMPORTANT, note that it has a time frame “until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”

With regard to the SECOND aspect just mentioned, it is worthwhile to recall the resolution proposed by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for the General Convention 2006 (this wording never made it to the floor but it is important in that it shows the intent of Windsor in this regard WAS understood by the special commission):

Proposed resolution A161 read:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

Please observe that the committee included nomination, election and consent as all these were clearly in view. In the last two years three dioceses””California, Newark and now Chicago, have nominated non-celibate same sex parterned persons to be finalists for bishop in their dioceses. This is not what the Anglican Communion asked for.

Resolution B033 reads

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction 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 and will lead to further strains on communion.

Note that the focus has been broadened and is no longer on the specific issue that Windsor asked for, that the nomination and election aspects are eliminated, and that there is no time frame specified.

In the Episcopal Church we have not done what was requested of us in either case. Bishop Parsley is wrong.

Finally, any discussion of the Tanzania Primatial Vicar proposal–which was rejected by the House of Bishops when they last met, and by the Executive Council thereafter–does not matter until BOTH of these first two matters are resolved and TEC’s leadership makes clear that it will do what the Anglican Communion wants.

I for one will be delighted if all of these issues are resolved on the terms which were called for, and the Anglican Communion finds a future of unity in truth which God intends for us as we proceed further into the twenty-first century. But it must come as we honor the Lord with our lips and our hearts.

So, my prayer for New Orleans is for HONESTY. The leadership of the Episcopal Church changed its teaching and practice climactically in 2003 and moved it away from that of the Anglican Communion. God did a new thing and justice had to be done. So let the TEC leaders have the courage of their convictions and say what they actually believe before God and the global Anglican leaders. If they fail to do so, where is the justice in that?

On Monday this week, the last of the 343 firefighters who died on September 11th was buried. Because no remains of Michael Ragusa, age 29, of Engine Company 279, were found and identified, his family placed in his coffin a very small vial of his blood, donated years ago to a bone-marrow clinic. At the funeral service Michael’s mother Dee read an excerpt from her son’s diary on the occasion of the death of a colleague. “It is always sad and tragic when a fellow firefighter dies,” Michael Ragusa wrote, “especially when he is young and had everything to live for.” Indeed. And what a sobering reminder of how many died and the awful circumstances in which they perished that it took until this week to bury the last one.

So here is to the clergy, the ministers, rabbis, imams and others, who have done all these burials and sought to help all these grieving families. And here is to the families who lost loved ones and had to cope with burials in which sometimes they didn’t even have remains of the one who died. And here, too, is to the remarkable ministry of the Emerald Society Pipes and Drums, who played every single service for all 343 firefighters who lost their lives. The Society chose not to end any service at which they played with an up-tempo march until the last firefighter was buried.

On Monday, in Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, the Society therefore played “Garry Owen” and “Atholl Highlander,” for the first time since 9/11 as the last firefighter killed on that day was laid in the earth. On the two year anniversary here is to New York, wounded and more sober, but ever hopeful and still marching.

—First published on this blog September 11, 2003

This is a long download but an important file to take the time to listen to and watch. There are a few pieces I would have wished to do differently in terms of the choices, but the actual footage and the music is valuable.

For myself, I finally watched United flight 93 which I have been unable to handle watching until this year. It also is very worth the time. I was speechless by the end. My distinguished friend and co-worker the Rev. Craige Borrett saw United 93 in the theatre and noted that it was the only time he has ever been to a movie where the people left in total silence–KSH.

It is part of the present atmosphere in Anglicanism that people do not hear what others are saying clearly–alas. For only the latest example of this, read the Anglican Scotist’s piece here. This would be sad if it were not so serious.

Never mind that people such as Susan Russell and FatherJake–both known for not agreeing with the convenor of this blog–appreciated what I said. Somehow it isn’t good enough.

It would help if the Anglican Scotist would at least cite my argument in the order in which it is written. I cited the Primates first because they are Christian leaders and I believe they are speaking to a Christian standard in the Christian community which they lead. I only went on to the second point because it makes this offense all the more egregious. The argument is not instrumental at all, the first point is theological, and the second point goes further and undergirds it.

If the Anglican Scotist had the courtesy at least to check with me first and to ask–is this in fact what you are saying, have I fairly summarized your argument?–it would have helped–KSH.

I was very disgusted, upset and saddened to read the statement of Bishop Isaac Orama as quoted by the News Agency of Nigeria in a UPI story who, (if he is quoted accurately, and I am assuming that he is) said that persons involved in same sex behavior “are insane, satanic and are not fit to live.”

It was the Primates of the Anglican Communion who said at Dromantine:

We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship (vii).

They were quite right to say so, and to call us to a such good standard during a stressful time. By that standard, the statement from the UPI story utterly fails.

It is, however, worse than that. We are all in the global village now, like it or not, and the world is indeed flat. So what we say needs to take seriously the resonances that it may bring out in contexts other than our own. There could hardly be a worse statement in a Western context than to say of ANYONE that he or she is “not fit to live.” It immediately brings to mind the Nazi language of Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) and in flood images and activities too horrendous and horrific for any of us to take in even at this historical distance from the events themselves.

These words are to be utterly repudiated by all of us–I hope and trust–KSH.

Three American priests who left the Episcopal Church after it appointed an openly gay bishop in 2003 have been consecrated as bishops in Africa. They’re returning to minister to American congregations, but will report to conservative churches in Africa.

Listen to it all. In the piece, Bill Atwood is wrongly identified as being from Massachusetts; he is from Texas and it is Bill Murdoch who is in Massachusetts. Jan Nunley tries her tired this-is-no-big-deal-the numbers-of-parishes-involved-are-so-small line, which continues to fail mightily not only with the secular media as well as a number of our sister denominations which see us as an example of how not to proceed, but also with the reality in the church on the ground. When you consider the number of people who have departed as individuals, as well as the number of parishes springing up of people who wish to be Anglicans but do not wish to be associated with TEC, along with the number of parishes and dioceses still in TEC who wish no part of the national leadership’s new theology (think Windsor Bishops, Network Dioceses, numerous groups of organized reasserting clergy and lay people, and many others), you have a quite significant problem.

Indeed, even one national church study (not to mention the statistics) makes this clear:

Only 20% [fully] endorse the actions of General Convention [2003].

Now, ask any priest out there, Jan, how they would feel if only 20% of their vestry was fully behind their capital campaign in terms of whether the capital campaign would work? As they say denial is not a river in Egypt. You cannot judge the degree of opposition to the terrible and mistaken choices made in 2003 with the number of parishes which, as nearly entire parishes, left, because in our polity it is quite difficult to achieve the degree of support and unity necessary for a whole parish (or diocese) to make such a choice, AND, those opposed have differing discernments about how best to proceed at the present time.

Oh and I have a question which I bet has occurred to some of you. Now that it is September 2007, where in the world are the statistics for calendar year 2006?–KSH

Update: The thoughts of Alan Guelzo are worth recalling as well.

I am flying up to Ohio to meet Elizabeth and Abigail for the final drop off at College tomorrow.

Our oldest daughter leaves for College in a few minutes. She is heading for the College of Wooster. It seems like only yesterday that she was born right after Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Where does the time go? KSH.

“Dear Harmon Boys…Girls, too:

What a glorious celebration was had by all last Sunday. I could see Mary Ann tapping her feet and clapping to that fabulous Dixieland jazz. All the wonderful tributes…one felt that no one could say enough in praise of our beautiful cousin. I, too, remember that she always had her lipstick on. So many wonderful memories. We were blessed to have known and loved her.

We arrived home with no further tire trouble….

Please do not forget that your Woodstock cousins are expecting all of you to come by and visit any time but especially on special occasions. As you know we have room for you at Frenchfield…no need for a hotel.

Thank you again for a memorable weekend.”

Last night Dad and I went fishing and caught a 13 inch small mouth bass.

This morning Elizabeth and I paddled around Jabe Pond for two hours. We saw two Loons and their two babies and two deer.

The children have been tubing up a storm behind Grandad’s boat.

Stand Firm has posted the first two of five clips of a video interview Sarah Hey conducted with Kendall back in April. This elf has watched them both. Sarah’s got some great questions and it’s a wonderful way to learn more about our favorite canon theologian and blog convener!

Here are the first two links. We’ll of course bump this up when the other videos in the series are posted. Each video is about 13-15 minutes.

Video: Kendall Harmon on Leadership, Part 1
Video: Kendall Harmon on Leadership, Part 2

Update: Parts 3 and 4 are now posted:

Part 3
Part 4

SILVER BAY * Mary Ann Harmon, 71, of Silver Bay, passed away Thursday, March 8, 2007, at her residence.

Born in Washington, D.C., June 15, 1935, she was the daughter of the late William S. French Jr. and Margaret Lillian (Ritter) French.

Mrs. Harmon was a graduate of Duke University, where she was President of her class.

She was a dedicated teacher for many years in Charlotte, N. C. and Annapolis, Md.

She has summered in Silver Bay since 1959, before becoming a permanent resident in 1995.

She was president of the League of Women Voters of her local chapter in New Jersey, and a member of a special group of University Leaders.

She was a devoted mother, with a strong vision of the importance of serving the community.

Survivors include her husband of 46 years, Francis Stuart Harmon; two sons, Kendall S. Harmon of South Carolina and Randall H. Harmon of Washington Grove, Md.; and one brother, William S. French III of McLean, Va. She is also survived by three grandchildren, Abigail Harmon, Nathaniel Harmon and Selimah Harmon.

A memorial service will take place on Aug. 5, 2007, at 3 p.m. at the Silver Bay Association Chapel. The Rev. Bruce Tamlyn will officiate.

Arrangements are under the direction of Wilcox & Regan Funeral Home of Ticonderoga.

We are off to worship this morning. The internment of Mom’s ashes is at 1 p.m. The memorial service, which is a New Orleans style jazz band service, begins at 3. Then there is a reception after that, and then tonight Dad is having some more immediate family and friends back to the House–KSH.

Today is the South Carolina Episcopal election, with only Mark Lawrence on the ballot.

I will not be there.

My mother’s memorial service is tomorrow and the whole family is travelling today to be with my Dad, my brother, and the family for this important event. After that next week I am on vacation. Blogging will therefore go down. Thanks very much for your prayers and your support–KSH.

Update: We are going here which is where Dad lives (just off campus) and where I grew up going every summer.