September 26th, 2007

A STATEMENT ON THE RESPONSE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO THE DAR ES SALAAM COMMUNIQUÉ

In accordance with our desire to walk “in a manner worthy of the calling to which we have been called, ”¦ eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Ephesians (4:1,2) we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations. It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance from The Episcopal Church of their commitment to the mind and teaching of the Communion. We also made clear that it is a time for clarity and a rejection of what hitherto has been endless series of ambiguous and misleading statements. Sadly it seems that our hopes were not well founded and our pleas have once again been ignored.

While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. The unequivocal assurances that we sought have not been given; what we have is a carefully calculated attempt to win support to ensure attendance at the Lambeth Conference and continued involvement in the life of the Communion.

Instead of the change of heart (repentance) that we sought what we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination to “bring the rest of the Communion along” as stated by a bishop at one of the press conferences. We also note that while we have repeatedly asked for a moratorium on same-sex blessings ”“across the Episcopal Church the clergy have continued with these blessings with the full knowledge and support of the Diocesan bishops even if not technically authorized.

This attitude towards the Word of God and the requests of the Communion is at odds with the Spirit of the One we serve. The Unity that Christ commands can only be found in obedience to the Truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures and mutual submission to one another. The Gospel message of freedom, justice and dignity for all persons can only be found in heartfelt repentance and joyful obedience to the Truth.

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” John 14:21

THE CHURCH OF NIGERIA (Anglican Communion)

THE MOST REV. PETER J. AKINOLA, D.D, CON
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria.

Sincerely,

The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD

The resolution affirmed the status quo of the Episcopal Church, both theological conservatives and liberals said.

It states, for example, that it “reconfirms” a call to bishops “to exercise restraint” by not consenting to the consecration of a partnered gay bishop. It also says the bishops promise not to authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.” Still, some bishops allow such blessings to occur in their dioceses. Both positions have been stated in past meetings of the governing body of the church, the General Convention.

The resolution also calls for an “immediate end” to the practice of foreign bishops’ consecrating conservative Americans to minister to breakaway congregations in the United States, a trend that church leaders believe undermines their authority.

The Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a prominent conservative group supported by the Archbishop of Nigeria, responded to the bishops’ resolution: “They’re offering business as usual. The communion asked them to make a change, to embrace the teaching of the communion about homosexuality, and there’s no change at all.”

Read it all.

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.

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.

For me, the significance and urgency of these next few days and weeks is in part because of the clear and specific, time-limited requests to TEC from the Primates and their warning that “if the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”. With Lambeth now less than a year away if there are indeed to be ‘consequences for…full participation’ it is clear the Primates will either have to eat their words or action will have to be taken by the Instruments sooner rather than later.

There is also the rapid rise in interventions within TEC and these now increasingly in the form not of taking parishes for a period under a foreign jurisdiction but of consecrations to the episcopate. When such consecrations began over 7 years ago, the then Archbishop of Canada, (in)famously remarked, “Bishops are not intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactured on one continent and fired into another as an act of aggression”. There now looks dangerously like an episcopal equivalent of an arms race developing as Nigeria (having followed Rwanda in establishing a US mission wing with its own bishop in Martyn Minns) have announced four more bishops (despite CANA having only 60 congregations and 80 clergy requiring oversight), Rwanda another 3 AMiA bishops, while Kenya and Uganda have recently joined in and elected and already consecrated new suffragan bishops to serve American parishes under their province’s jurisdiction. Linked together under Common Cause and meeting as what looks like a potential proto-college of bishops just after TEC’s House of Bishops and just before the African provinces of CAPA gather in early October, it now seems TEC’s claim to be the sole structural representative of Anglicanism in the US is unsustainable, especially if a number of dioceses shortly seek to remove themselves and become part – as whole dioceses – of another Anglican province. While this is, of course, simply the latest in a long line of defections and breakaways over the last 30 or 40 years, the fact these are fully integrated into other provinces of the Communion and their leadership apparently committed to working together in mission and ministry mean we are now clearly in uncharted waters for the Communion and its unity. These “interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation” (Primates at Dar) and I wish they had not happened and would now be stopped. However, they will only come to an end and the bishops and congregations somehow reintegrated and made regular within an ordered church if the American bishops next week change course.

My hope and prayer is therefore obviously that TEC’s bishops will respond clearly and positively to the request of the Primates. That will require them to reverse their initial rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme (which rash rejection, to be honest, played into the hands of those eager for more interventions, certainly in the case of Kenya and Uganda who were happy to work with the Scheme as a means of providing oversight for their American congregations). They will also need clearly to give the assurances sought[1] as to the effect of the actions of General Convention 2006 (and I don’t think they are being asked to unconstitutionally usurp or ‘trump’ Convention but simply to interpret its ambiguous resolutions and to make commitments clearly within their remit as bishops – episcopal authorisation of rites and consent to elected candidates for the episcopate). Only this will enable the Primates at last to be “in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships”.

Sadly, this outcome looks highly unlikely and so serious thought needs to be given to what happens next. I look forward to hearing how you think the Communion should respond to such an outcome but suspect you will call for a recognition of provincial autonomy and diversity in secondary matters, the need for ongoing respectful dialogue on both sexuality and the nature and structures of life in communion (especially as regards the proposed covenant), and the importance of Lambeth 2008 as a place where such dialogue can take place and bonds of affection be strengthened. As I write that – please forgive me for putting the words into your mouth and correct me where I am wrong! – I realise that stated in those general terms and abstracted from our recent history I could agree. The difficulty is that, as with the majority of the Communion, I don’t at present see these as areas of legitimate diversity. I also honestly believe that if the dialogue and Lambeth conference we so urgently need is to be in the context of trust that will enable conversations to flourish and move everyone on from the current impasse then the American church must take the steps called for in the Windsor Report and reaffirmed consistently by all the Instruments of Communion.

What then do I think should happen if TEC fails to respond adequately? In one sense of course that is of little importance. TEC is responding to the Primates who in turn are simply following the mind of the Communion as expressed in TWR and its reception. It is, therefore, vital for the Primates as a body to determine – or at least be integrally involved in the determination of – the Communion’s response.

Read it all.

Q&A #1: from New Jersey, by phone (at 18.35ff. on the telecast): “I keep hearing about a deadline of September 30, that it’s a line in the sand. I’m not sure what happens if no action is taken by September 30th.”

KJS: “A decision not to decide is also a decision”¦. What is likely to happen is that we would be excluded in some way from the councils of the Anglican Communion. My guess is that the Archbishop of Canterbury will respect the will of the majority of the primates expressed in this communiqué, and impose some sanctions in that regard.”

Nunley: “And what does that mean for the church?”

KJS: “What it means for the church is we lose our voice at the table; we might lose our voice in that conversation. It could mean that we lose our ability to influence, our ability to share experience, our ability to challenge people to consider other options, in our conversations with other leaders around the Anglican Communion.”

#2: from France, by email (19:47ff.): “A hypothetical question that no one wants to answer, but: Could the Episcopal Church go it alone?”KJS: “I don’t think this church is ever alone. We have many, many partners around the world, partners in mission, partners in theological discussions. The body of Christ is never meant to be divided up into pieces; and I think that’s the underlying struggle in this”¦.”

#16: from Cedar Falls, Iowa, by phone (37:38): “Good morning. I’m here with my partner”¦. And, Bp Schori, you’ve stated that the communiqué is a gracious offering to us to have some space to work. But in reading it, it feels like, to us, that the answers are already specified for us that we must meet. The primates have not accepted what we’ve done in Convention; the sanctions are already specified: for if we do not do A, B, and C, this is what’s going to happen. So, in reading it, we don’t feel like there’s much space or much graciousness; it feels very harsh. Thank-you.”

KJS (38:27): “I understand that and I share some of that sentiment; Americans don’t like anybody to tell them what to do; that’s part of our DNA. At the same time, to live together in Christian community means that each member takes seriously the needs and concerns of the other members. And it is in that sense that, I think, what we’re being asked may have some gracious elements in it. It is a response that is asked for a season, until the Covenant process is completed. And if this church decides that it wants to continue to be a partner at the conversation table in the process of creating that Covenant, we have some expectations set before us.”

Read it all.

Stand Firm has four documents posted. Three are suggestions by various Bishops as to what should be said in a “Mind of the House” resolution. The fourth is a memo from Peter Lee. We’ve posted some excerpts below, but if you can read them all at Stand Firm, please do so.

A Memorandum to the House of Bishops from Peter James Lee
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6103/

This one is about Resolution B033 — an explanation of what it supposedly meant to the House of Bishops.

Key text:
[blockquote]The General Convention speaks for the Episcopal Church and we bishops understand that resolution as providing an assurance to the wider communion that meets the requests of the Primates’ Communique from the Primates’ meeting in Tanzania. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has never authorized the blessing of intimate unions between same sex partners. While the Episcopal Church has, for some forty years, explored the most faithful way of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life, as a liturgical church, our official actions are expressed in our liturgies and no rite of blessing has ever been adopted by the General Convention.[/blockquote]

========================

Bishop Henry N. Parsley (Alabama): Mind of the House Resolution
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6105/

This one is a bit more detailed, it tries to discuss all the issues: Polity, B033, authorization of SSBs, DEPO, etc. Here’s an excerpt:

We have listened prayerfully to your communiqué from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in February 2007 and offer our response.

We recognize that in the polity of the Episcopal Church we as the House of Bishops acting alone cannot legislate for this church or alter resolutions of the General Convention. In our role as chief pastors of the Episcopal Church we believe that, consistent with the report presented to you by the Communion Sub-Group of the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee, our General Convention Resolution B-033 (On the Election of Bishops) is in accord with the requests of the Windsor Report and meets your concerns. The Sub-Group found that this resolution “complies with the force of the Windsor Report” and that by adopting it “the majority of the bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.” We agree.

Secondly, we remind you that our General Convention did not in 2006, nor has before, adopted resolutions authorizing the development of the public rites for the blessing of same sex unions. The Covenant Statement adopted by our House of Bishops in 2005 states that “we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006”. The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter and the Covenant Statement continues to have moral force among us as bishops. We continue as well to heed the word of the Primates’ Meeting communiqué from Dromantine assuring “homosexual persons that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.” We recognize that in our diocese there will be differing pastoral responses to this affirmation.

Thirdly, we affirm once again our unequivocal commitment and care for all the dioceses, parishes, and members of the Episcopal Church, as evidenced in our Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan.

========================

A Resolution Submitted by Bishop Dean E. Wolfe, Diocese of Kansas
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6106/

Ok here’s the key section of this one:

As bishops laboring in a fractured age, we seek to find a place for everyone at Christ’s table. We believe room for respectful disagreement within our church is holy space and we value opportunities for ongoing conversation, prayer, and growth. While we acknowledge that we are not of one mind, we continue to strive to be of one heart. We are resolute in our belief that, “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.”

We pledge ourselves to work more fervently for deeper unity in the Church and we commit ourselves to addressing the pastoral needs and concerns of everyone in our care. We are pleased to note a growing awareness and understanding of the polity of The Episcopal Church, both within the membership of our own church and with our Anglican partners in other Provinces, even as we gain a deeper awareness and understanding of the polity of other Provinces. We affirm our understanding that The General Convention, that wondrous gathering of lay and ordained person, is authoritative for our Province.

=======================

Mind Of The House Resolution Submitted By Bishop Pierre Whalon
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6107/

Bishop Whalon’s resolution is the most detailed of all. Not merely a short statement but quite a comprehensive outline of what he thinks the bishops need to say. Here is his introduction and another short excerpt:

I propose that the document we release at the end of our meeting address the basic points below, some of which have to be filled out as the meeting unfolds. The first three seem to me to be obviously needed, The other points also seem necessary: some description of the actual state of The Episcopal church, to help people around the world hear what is actually happening among us: addressing the issue of authority in the Communion, particularly relating to the ACC; affirming the essential unity of all the baptized, despite how we might feel about other people at times; and addressing the matters of the Primatial Vicar, B033, and rites of same-sex blessings.

I offer some language for these latter points, in parts quite strong. It isn’t in my usual style, but I think we cannot mince words. Some reiteration of basics of the faith seems necessary, since people around the globe will be reading what we have to say. […]

IV. Before we turn to our comment on the Primates Communiqué, we must set the record straight about the actual state of The Episcopal Church. E.g.,

Number of parishes is 7,115; numbers of parishes seeking to leave TEC is around 160, or about 2.2%. This is a major tragedy, but not the massive movement that some would claim.

While the Windsor Report commended our plan of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (§152), we have seen an organized strategy of congregations refusing any and all provision of alternative oversight and then claiming that they are being persecuted. When parishes have been willing to engage in the process, DEPO has worked effectively. We noted with frustration that DEPO, offered at great cost, did not receive any recognition in the Primates Communiqué.

It should be noted that parishes and dioceses in The Episcopal Church do not exist apart from it. We respect that some people feel bound by conscience to leave the Church and go elsewhere, though such partings of friends have been extremely painful to live through. Some parishes have challenged their dioceses in the secular courts for retention of properties that do not belong to them. These properties are most often the result of the hard work of generations of faithful Episcopalians, and the lawsuits have resulted in serious wasteful diversion of funds that should be consecrated for the mission of God to pay for secular legal representation. While we are listening to the leaders of a few dioceses who say they must leave, and would dread that eventuality, it is clear that they would leave as people, not dioceses. As Bishops of this Church. We implore those who feel they need to leave to reconsider.

Eight bishops have accepted an invitation to serve as episcopal visitors consistent with Delegated Pastoral Oversight (DEPO), an initiative approved by the House of Bishops in 2004.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was expected to announce the development during the opening plenary session of the House of Bishops’ meeting Sept. 20-25 in New Orleans, according to the Rev. Canon Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.

Canon Robertson added that Bishop Jefferts Schori conferred with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams about the invitations, which she extended after a process of consultation with bishops in The Episcopal Church. The first two days of the meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams are private.

Read it all.

In order to try to rectify this situation, the Primates – based on a number of Lambeth resolutions urging them to exercise greater authority in such situations – made the unprecedented step of proposing their own solution to the internal problems of the American province. This involves the establishing of a Pastoral Council of up to five members (chaired by a Primate nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and with two members nominated by the Primates and two nominated by the Presiding Bishop) to implement a Pastoral Scheme, facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation, monitor TEC’s response to Windsor and ‘consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report § 157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops’. 14

The Pastoral Scheme is focussed on the group known as ‘Windsor’ or ‘Camp Allen’ bishops (and others who may join them). They may provide pastoral oversight to parishes who request it and nominate a Primatial Vicar who will be delegated powers and duties by the Presiding Bishop and be responsible to the Council. Crucially, this system is to be implemented whatever decisions are made by the House of Bishops prior to September 30 th this year and the Scheme is ‘intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of the Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required’. 15

The benefits of this solution are, first, that it prevents the establishment of a new province by creating a Primatially-sponsored and overseen interim structure within TEC during the covenant process. Second, it offers the hope of bringing an end to violations of this aspect of Windsor because, once the Pastoral Scheme is in place, ‘the Primates undertake to end all interventions’ and ‘congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight’ set out in the scheme. 16 It is, however, noted that there are ‘particular difficulties’ with the more structured interventions undertaken by Rwanda (American Mission in America – AMiA) and Nigeria (Convocation of Anglicans in North America – CANA), both of which have consecrated former ECUSA/TEC priests as bishops. Third, it represents a conciliar way forward for the Communion agreed by the Primates as a whole rather than a unilateral solution offered simply by some of the Primates such as the Global South grouping or a part of that network.

This proposal therefore seeks to maintain the internal unity of the American church by providing much more robust structures of alternative pastoral oversight which are to be monitored by the wider Communion. In so doing, it hopes to encourage those currently identified with (or flirting with) Group I to become more communion-minded and align more clearly with Group II, just as elsewhere the communiqué seeks to encourage the American bishops clearly to distinguish themselves from Group IV by complying fully and unambiguously with The Windsor Report’s recommendations.

The Primates in Tanzania therefore managed not only to avoid any split within the Communion but also to take actions that uphold both Lambeth I.10 and the Windsor Report and that encourage bishops, dioceses and provinces to act in conformity with these and move away from Group I and Group IV (positions that increase pressure for fragmentation and realignment) into Group II or Group III. The question now is whether TEC will be able to give the necessary reassurances and implement the proposed Pastoral Scheme and whether intervening bishops from the Global South will then work with the Scheme. Each one of these conditions remains far from certain but were they to be met then there is the real possibility that there could be greater stability over the next few years as the covenant process unfolds and a new pattern of life in communion continues to develop in our Communion relationships, to be articulated in Communion statements and to reform the Instruments of Communion.

It is not short but please take the time to read it all.

“We’re very clear on our (church governance) and our theology,” said Washington, D.C., Bishop John Bryson Chane on Wednesday. “Our position on full inclusion in all parts of church life for all the baptized has not, and will not, change.”

“This is the first time the Archbishop of Canterbury will hear, in our own voices, where we are as a church, what we’ve been through and where we are going,” he said.

Traditionalists are holding steadfast as well. More than 60 parishes have split off to align with traditionalist archbishops in Africa and South America. Several are battling their former dioceses in court for possession of parish properties.

Already the primates for Nigeria and Kenya have consecrated U.S.-based bishops to run essentially parallel parishes in defiance of the Episcopal Church. But the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon of the Diocese of South Carolina estimates 8% to 20% of active Episcopalians “have enormous problems with what’s happening, but no provision is being made for them….

Though Harmon sees intense pressure on the Episcopal Church this week, Canon Jim Naughton, spokesman for Chane’s diocese, says traditionalists have no cards left to play. “I think the leaders of the Episcopal Church are more optimistic about remaining in the Communion than they have been in several years,” Naughton says.

Read it all.

Though Anglican leaders have urged the U.S. church to stop electing gay bishops who are in committed relationships, a lesbian priest is among five finalists for bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. Meanwhile, dissidents in the diocese will turn out Sunday in suburban Wheaton to hear Archbishop Peter Akinola, conservative leader of Nigeria’s Anglican Church and the fiercest critic of the Episcopal Church’s stance on gays.

His visit irked Bishop William Persell of Chicago, who said the event was potentially damaging to the church amid the “highly charged political rhetoric in our nation and around the world” about issues dividing the Anglicans.

“It’s unfortunate that he would come into the diocese of Chicago without so much as the courtesy of contacting me,” Persell said. “I think it’s a dangerous time for the communion.”

At their meeting in New Orleans, the U.S. bishops will discuss how to respond to a directive from Anglican leaders to stop consecrating gay bishops and to ban blessings of same-sex unions until the global church reaches a consensus. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, titular head of the communion, will be there, facing U.S. bishops for the first time since the 2003 consecration of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

That the Wheaton event is being held at the same, critical moment is one illustration of how new alliances between American conservatives and overseas clergy have pushed the Anglican Communion to a possible breaking point.

But for many Episcopalians, the separation in the church has begun. Already, the dioceses of Quincy, Ill., Ft. Worth, San Joaquin, Calif., and Pittsburgh have begun planning to leave the Episcopal Church.

Still, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy said he was holding out hope that Williams would take definitive action to preserve the communion.

“We are asking Rowan Williams to be bold and represent the worldwide Anglican Communion and not just the Episcopal Church,” he said. “The Episcopal Church has engaged in behavior that has caused a rupture in the communion, and I feel saddened by that.”

Read it all.

[Ephraim] Radner described the meeting as the most significant for the church in at least three years.

For many years, the Episcopal Church has been at odds with much of the Anglican Communion over the U.S. church’s more liberal views on homosexuality and scriptural teachings. The Episcopal Church directly challenged the prevailing conservative views of the communion in 2003 when it consecrated V.Gene Robinson, a gay man living with his partner, as bishop of New Hampshire.

In February, tensions escalated further when three dozen top Anglican leaders, known as primates, issued the directive on gay bishops and same-sex blessings at a meeting in Tanzania. They also urged the Episcopal Church to create an alternative structure to oversee conservative breakaway parishes and dioceses, with several of its members to be appointed by clerics outside the United States.

The Episcopal bishops rejected the oversight proposal in May, saying it could lead to the permanent division of the Episcopal church. And in June, the church’s executive council turned down the demand on same-sex unions and gay bishops. Such decisions, the council said, could only be made by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, which is not scheduled to meet until 2009.

The Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, said Wednesday that he did not expect those decisions to be overturned at the bishops’ meeting. “I don’t believe we have the power to go beyond that before the General Convention,” he said. “And if the primates think some magic change will occur in the House of Bishops and the national church in which we say we rescind everything, that’s not going to happen.”

Read it all.

The BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the dispute has proved so “devastating” because it hinged on fundamental differences of how strictly the bible should be interpreted.

He described the demands being made on the Episcopal Church as “deeply unpalatable” for them.

Speaking in April, Dr Williams said: “It’s not just about nice people who want to include gay and lesbian Christians, and nasty people who want not to include them.

“The question is, really, ‘What are the forms of behaviour that the Church has the freedom or the authority to bless if it wants to be faithful to scripture and tradition?’

“That’s the question which is tearing us apart at the moment.”

Read it all.

Episcopal bishops gather today in New Orleans to consider their response to leaders of the parent church who want them to back down from their commitment to gays and lesbians.

One North Carolina bishop will bring a clear message: Don’t do it.

Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina has been listening to members of his diocese, many of whom say he should not bow to demands from the Anglican Communion that the American church stop ordaining openly gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions.

As one Episcopalian put it at a congregational meeting in Raleigh earlier this week, “We don’t dictate to them how they should behave, they shouldn’t dictate to us how we should behave.”

Read it all.

Dr Williams will make a week-long visit to Armenia, Syria and Lebanon following the US meeting, Lambeth Palace said.

A statement said his visit to Armenia was the result of an outstanding invitation from the Catholicos, His Holiness Karekin II, who heads the Armenian Apostolic Church.

His visit to Syria and Lebanon will be shorter and forms part of his continuing personal engagement with Christian churches in the Middle East and with leaders of other faiths in the region, the statement said.

The visit takes place at the invitation of the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Suhail Dawani, whose diocese covers these countries, and is being arranged in collaboration with the Middle East Council of Churches.

In Syria, as well as meetings with Christian leaders and the local Anglican community, Dr Williams will meet the Grand Mufti of Syria and the country’s president, Dr Bashar Al Asad.

Dr Williams’s trip following the US meeting will begin before America’s formal response to this issue and will also make him unavailable for conciliation before the September deadline.

Read it all.

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?

Starting on Thursday in New Orleans, Episcopal bishops will take up the most direct demand yet that they reverse course: Anglican leaders want an unequivocal pledge that Episcopalians won’t consecrate another gay bishop or approve official prayers for same-gender couples. If the church fails to do so by Sept. 30, their full membership in the Anglican Communion could be lost.

“I think the bishops are going to stand up and say, `Going backward is not one of our options,'” said Wade of the Washington diocese, who has led church legislative committees on liturgy and Anglican relations. “I don’t think there’s going to be a backing down.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is taking the rare step of meeting privately with the bishops on the first two days of their closed-door talks. The Anglican spiritual leader faces a real danger that the communion, nearly five centuries old, could break up on his watch.

“I’m working very hard to stop that happening,” he told The Daily Telegraph of London.

Read it all.

By George Conger

THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury has set three questions for the American Church to answer at this week’s meeting of the US House of Bishops in New Orleans. Failure to pass the test, which will be graded by the primates of the Anglican Communion, may result in the de facto expulsion of the Episcopal
Church from the Anglican Communion. While no legal mechanism exists to expel a member church from the Communion, should the Episcopal Church deign not to comply with the unanimous request of the Primates, the current structure of the Communion would not likely stand the stress, and crack up.

The US House of Bishops will be asked:

1. To clarify the meaning and intent of the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention resolution B033, which pledged the bishops to refrain from consenting to the election of bishops whose ”˜manner of life’ would pose a challenge to the Communion,

2. To clarify their stance on the blessing of same-sex unions. While the Prayer Book does not permit the practice, several dioceses had authorised rites for the blessing of gay unions as a ”˜pastoral’ measure, and

3. To explain its views on a proposed Anglican Covenant. While the final Covenant document has not been drafted, should the American Church refuse to consider endorsing any pan-Anglican agreement, it would render the exercise moot.

The US Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is expected to reintroduce proposals for a ”˜primatial vicar’ who would exercise metropolitan authority on her behalf for conservatives. The proposal was first made Last November, but conservatives rejected it, saying the proposal lacked any guarantees or accountability.

The Presiding Bishop is understood to have canvassed a number of bishops about the primatial vicar plan, including one participant in the Camp Allen meetings of moderate and conservative bishops and had been given conflicting advice as to the suitability of her proposal. Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker told The Church of England Newspaper any plan that kept his diocese under the authority of Bishop Schori was a non-starter.

From the left, a group of five bishops has prepared a 98-page paper that rejects the primates’ pastoral scheme. They argue that the plans violated the Episcopal Church’s polity. But one of the purported authors of that document, Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, disassociated himself from it, saying
the bishops had a duty to guard the faith and unity of the Church.

“I believe bishops have authority and responsibility to act quite apart from General Convention, and you need look no further than the catechism in The Book of Common Prayer from where my views derive,” he said.

–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, September 21,2007 edition, on page one

“What do you do with the hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians who say, ‘I can’t go there’?” asks the Rev. Russell Levenson, rector of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston, the largest Episcopal church in the United States. “We have to find a way to allow both groups to live with their own convictions within the body of Christ.”

Depending on the bishops’ response, some foresee a “pulling apart” of many additional congregations, spurring divisive and costly battles over property.

On Thursday, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and a committee of global Anglican leaders will meet with the House of Bishops in New Orleans to discuss the crisis. Most observers expect the bishops will not make the commitments the Anglican leaders have requested, but will say instead that they alone cannot speak for the church ”“ that the general convention involving lay people and clergy must give any official response. The convention doesn’t meet again until 2009.

“Those who pushed for this response knew it would be difficult to deliver on those requests,” says the Rev. Ian Douglas of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. “They are hoping, I suspect, this is another line in the sand.”

Read it all.

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].

The bishops’ schedule calls for closed-door meetings with Williams all day Thursday and Friday morning. First among the Episcopal bishops will be Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, a defender of faithful gays and lesbians, who was elected last summer.

Representatives of overseas primates demanding change also will sit in on the talks, according to a schedule the church released.

“It seems now the way it’s going to work is they’re going to have to go home and digest what they’ve heard” before declaring their response to whatever the Americans put forward, [Louisiana Bishop] Jenkins said.

Few observers expect the Episcopal bishops to retreat from their steady course of the past 30 years.

“We expect the House of Bishops will continue the direction they’ve already set,” said Peter Frank, a spokesman for the Anglican Communion Network, a fellowship of nine conservative dioceses and 650 to 700 congregations. He said conservative bishops will leave the New Orleans meeting when Williams leaves. The meeting is scheduled to continue until Tuesday.

[Louisiana Bishop] Jenkins said he and 10 co-signers will offer a resolution that tracks the overseas primates’ wishes: banning same-sex rites, ending ordination of gay bishops, and establishing some kind of alternative Episcopal leadership for conservative congregations.

But he said his highest priority is to hold the communion together even with its divisions.

Read it all.

Update: [i]Here’s a better link to get the whole article on one page.[/i]

Don’t Blink Now!
Ask Your Bishop To Hold The Line
It is absolutely essential that you contact your bishop before September 19th and encourage him or her to “hold the line” against the primates’ unreasonable demands. Insist that there be no backsliding on full inclusion of the LGBT faithful. Write, e-mail, or call your bishop today! Here are some points to make”¦

”¢ The primates’ of the Anglican Communion do not have authority over the Episcopal Church.
Ӣ The House of Bishops cannot set policy for the entire Episcopal Church.
”¢ The Executive Council has already rejected the primates’ ultimatum on behalf of the entire Episcopal Church.
Ӣ The Episcopal Church cannot abandon its LGBT members for the sake of continued membership in the Anglican Communion.

We can’t abandon justice to maintain unity.

Read it all.

What are the two extreme ‘edges’ that the Anglican Communion needs defending against today? It seems to me that they are the ‘autonomous rootless liberalism’ that too often has undergirded the actions of The Episcopal Church and the ‘independent relentless puritanism’ that ignores the pivotal, gathering role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Both positions, in effect, have tried to trump the ‘interdependence’ of the Communion with their pre-emptive actions and reactions.

Immensely learned and biblically founded, Hooker drew on a hinterland of classical literature, patristics and ‘natural law’. His works were read by Roman Catholic and Puritan theologians. Sounds familiar? Oliver O’Donovan is Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology at the University of Edinburgh. Formerly he was Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford, and a member of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. It was he who coined the phrase concerning the Windsor Report, ‘the only game in town’, and this was echoed by Rowan Williams in his speech to General Synod in February 2005.

Like Hooker, instead of reacting with an instant tract on the current crisis in the Anglican Communion, O’Donovan responded with a series of seven monthly articles for Fulcrum. They provide crucial, challenging and nourishing background reading for this week.

Our third central theologian on ‘edge’ is Samuel T Coleridge (1772-1834). In his Aids to Reflection, he referred to ‘the venerable Hooker’ and quoted him ‘on the nature of pride’.[5] On 26 October 1831, near the end of his life, the poet, philosopher and theologian of genius, had dinner with his friends. His son, Hartley Coleridge, recorded some of his conversation, which included discussion of the ‘point’ and the ‘edge’ as the difference between ‘Keenness and Subtlety’:

Few men of genius are keen; but almost every man of genius is subtle. If you ask me the difference between keenness and subtlety, I answer that it is the difference between a point and an edge. To split a hair is no proof of subtlety; for subtlety acts in distinguishing between differences – in showing that two things apparently one are in fact two; whereas, to split a hair is to cause division, and not to ascertain difference.[6]

In our present double-edged context of response after 30 September 2007, it may be that Anglicans in the USA are more called towards the ‘distinguishing between differences’ – staying and arguing from within The Episcopal Church[7] – rather than the ‘common cause of division’ – splitting and forming another church.[8] As we saw Andrewes echoing Hebrews 4:12, perhaps we can see Coleridge echoing Hebrews 5:14 – which in turn reinforces the text preached before Kings James I in 1607, ‘But solid food is for the mature, for those who faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.’

Read it all.

Dr Williams’s efforts to keep the warring factions within the fold of the Anglican Communion will effectively be rendered meaningless if the American Church refuses to comply with the demands of the global church leaders.

“He’s in no uncertainty as to the importance of this meeting,” said one of his closest aides.

“The meeting is a major step in deciding whether the Anglican Communion can stay together as a global family. The Archbishop will try to find out whether the Episcopal Church is prepared to seek a way forward.”

The Anglican Communion – which has 70 million members worldwide – was plunged into the present crisis by the election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay cleric, to be Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

Read it all.

It wasn’t just a friendly invitation.

U.S. Episcopal bishops, fed up with Anglican criticism of their support for gay priests, implored the Anglican spiritual leader to hear their side of the story ”” in person.

Starting Thursday, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will be in New Orleans for that private talk, hoping he can hold together the increasingly fractured world Anglican family.

“If anybody can do it, then somebody of the intellectual stature of Rowan Williams could,” said Mark D. Chapman, lecturer in systematic theology at Ripon College Cuddesdon in Oxford, England. “But it is a very tall order.”

Williams arrives in the U.S. facing a real danger that the global Anglican Communion could break up on his watch.

Read it all.

“I think they’re pushing us because they want to polarize the issue,” said Bishop Henry Parsley of Alabama, who did not vote for Bishop Robinson’s consecration. “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.” If the bishops take such a position, that would amount to a rejection of the directive. Archbishop Williams would “have a hard time carrying on with business as usual,” said the Rev. Ephraim Radner, a leading Episcopal conservative and professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto.

The archbishop might then take steps to reduce the Episcopal Church’s role and representation in the communion, Mr. Radner and others said.

Some African primates have also spoken openly about leaving the Anglican Communion, which would create great disarray in their provinces, as not all their bishops or clergy are willing to break with the communion over this issue, Episcopal bishops and experts said.

“This is the most significant meeting in the last three years,” Mr. Radner said. “I’m not saying it will resolve everything, but it will set in motion responses that have been brewing for a long time. It doesn’t matter what happens, there’s going to be response from a whole range of folks in the Anglican Communion that will determine the future of communion.”

Bishop Parsley has it exactly backwards. The Primates are seeking clarity and asking TEC to embrace the mind and teaching of the communion in order that the Anglican Communion NOT be polarized and broken apart.

Bishop Parsley says “The primates want us to say that we don’t approve public rites of blessing, and we have not done that.” No, that is wrong also. As the Tanzania Communique makes clear:

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 Primates see what Bishop Parsley says is the case, that no explicit resolution about rites was indeed passed, but they also see that local pastoral provision at complete odds with Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 is occurring, and they want it to cease in Vermont and New Jersey and Olympia and New Hampshire and Nevada and in the numerous other dioceses where it happens. In the words of Archbishop Gomez, the Episcopal Church has a tendency to say one thing and do another. The Primates wish that hypocrisy to stop in the area of allowing for same sex blessings.

The fact that someone such as Bishop Parsley misconstrues the motivation of the Primates and misunderstands what is being requested at this late stage bodes ill for next week’s meeting.

Read it all.

In his own diocese, [Alabama Bishop Henry] Parsley said, between 500 and 600 people, including clergy groups, four convocational gatherings, the Standing Committee and Diocesan Council discussed the document and considered its reflection questions.

In the Diocese of Vermont, Bishop Thomas Ely hosted six “Communion Matters” conversations which he said were attended by close to 225 people from more than 30 congregations.

“Communion Matters conversations here in Vermont were marked by a spirit of respectful listening and sharing of information, ideas, concerns, hopes and fears,” Ely wrote in his column for the Mountain Echo, the monthly diocesan newspaper.

He reported that others talked with him privately, especially those whom he said felt uncomfortable expressing their opinion in a large group, and others emailed him.

“What I take away from them and what I take with me to New Orleans is the clear desire of the members of our diocese to remain as part of the Anglican Communion family, while at the same time continuing to welcome, celebrate and cherish the presence and ministry of all members of our diocese — our gay and lesbian members as well as our members who disagree with many of the recent actions of the General Convention,” Ely wrote. “I heard much in these conversations about justice, acceptance, tolerance, respect, living with tension, waiting in the moment, not rushing to judgment, betrayal, fear, ”˜scapegoating,’ unity, diversity, certainty, ambiguity, hope and confidence in God.”

He wrote that none of the problems were solved, “but maybe — just maybe — like those disciples on the road to Emmaus we now see the whole picture a little more clearly.”

Read it all.

Watch and listen to it all.

Two comments from yours truly. First, there is an error. The Presiding Bishop says that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Archbishop of Canterbury were invited but also invited (and omitted by her) is that the Primates Standing Committee was asked to come as well. Second, she really only mentions one instrument of Communion and noticeably not the other four (she mentions the Archbishop but not in that role). It is highly significant that the North American provinces keep exaggerating the importance of the Anglican Consultative Council, since they had and still have an undue influence in its functioning relative to other provinces in the Communion–KSH.

The proposed Anglican Communion Covenant is the one way for us to uphold our common heritage of faith while at the same time holding each other accountable to those teachings that have defined our life together and also guide us into the future. It has already received enthusiastic support from the majority of the Communion. Therefore we propose the following action plan:

As a matter of utmost urgency, call a special session of the Primates Meeting to:

a) Receive the responses made by The Episcopal Church to the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam Communiqués and determine their adequacy.

b) Arrive at a consensus for the application of the Windsor Process especially in Provinces whose self-understanding is at odds with the predominant mind of the Communion.

c) Set in motion an agreed process to finalize the Anglican Covenant Proposal and set a timetable for its ratification by individual provinces. This cannot be done at the Lambeth Conference because it is simply too large and, we all know, the Anglican Covenant requires individual provincial endorsement and signature.

Postpone current plans for the Lambeth Conference (as has been done before). This will:

a) Allow the current tensions to subside and leave room for the hard work of reconciliation that is a prerequisite for the fellowship we all desire.

b) Confirm that those invited to the Lambeth Conference have already endorsed the Anglican Covenant and so are able to come together as witnesses to our common faith.

Read it carefully and read it all.

– A group of active and retired bishops, all or most of them former attorneys, delivered a roughly 100-page report yesterday (9-13-07) to the Episcopal Church House of Bishops, accompanied by an “audio version” on disc. Among the authors, we predict, are the disgraced Joe Morris Doss, and Bishop of Lexington Stacy Sauls. Both bishops are former attorneys. The nature of this report is a “kick the can” proposal that includes at least two notable angles: The case as to why the HoB cannot reply to the demands of the Dar es Salaam communique (evidently a very detailed version of the ‘polity’ line the HoB has been peddling since its meeting in March); and some use of the data solicited by Sauls two weeks ago regarding the number and status of churches under foreign oversight. The latter may be part of a proposal to bring those churches ‘back into the fold’ somehow. As a whole, the document is to be offered as a ‘solution,’ but in fact defers all decisions to General Convention 2009.

– As reported earlier, Presiding Bishop Schori will present a modified primatial vicar plan. The proposed vicar will not be Bishop Howe of Central Florida. It will be a loyal institutionalist, slightly left of center, not known for speaking out one way or the other in the debate, and not in attendance at a single Camp Allen meeting….

Read it all.