The Lambeth Conference has given us good opportunities to meet together to talk and support one another. We want to share with you the experience that through our time together we have discovered a new sense of unity among us as bishops, and indeed our need of one another. In conversation we have become increasingly aware of the many priests and deacons, as well as other faithful, who are looking to us for a lead at the moment.

It is particularly to you, the 1,400 clergy who signed the open letter to the Archbishops, that we are writing, but we hope you will share this letter, as we shall, with others, both clergy and parish members, who share our concerns.
We write to assure you that we understand the difficulties we are all facing in the light of the instruction by General Synod to the Legislative Drafting Group (“The Manchester Group”) to prepare legislation with only a statutory code of practice for those unable for reasons of theological conviction to recognise or accept the ordination of women to the episcopate in the absence of wider Catholic consensus.

We identify with your difficult and painful feelings because they are ours too. It is now clear that the majority in this General Synod, and probably in the Church of England at large, believes it is right to admit women to the episcopate.

If that is so, it is vital for the most catholic of reasons that there must be no qualifications or restrictions to their ministry. That means however that proper ecclesial provision must be made for those who cannot accept this innovation.

Read it all.

Our time together has indeed demonstrated to us the breadth and richness of the Communion. It has been a privilege to be here together, to represent our dioceses and to grow in respect and affection for one another. With the many differences among us we have found ourselves profoundly connected with one another and committed to God’s mission. Many of us have experienced a real depth of fellowship in our Bible Study Groups and have been moved, sometimes to tears, by the stories our brothers and sisters have told us about the life of their churches, their communities and their own witness. For many bishops, especially those for whom this has been their first Lambeth Conference, they have understood for the first time what a precious thing it is to be an Anglican. There has been a wonderful spirit of dialogue and we want that to continue beyond the Conference by every means possible – “the indaba must go on,” as one group expressed it. For many of us have discovered more fully why we need one another and the joy of being committed to one another. At a time when many in our global society are seeking just the sort of international community that we already have, we would be foolish to let such a gift fall apart.

That mood set the atmosphere in which we talked about the three issues that were pulling us apart – (1) the action of the Episcopal Church in ordaining a partnered gay man as a bishop, (2) the authorisation in some churches of blessing of same-sex unions and (3) the unwelcome incursions into dioceses by bishops from other dioceses, or even provinces and continents, to exercise pastoral care and oversight to those disenchanted with their own bishop. What our group discussions helped us to do was to see that we were not dealing with “the American Church” or “the African bishops”, but with a number of brothers (and some sisters), each with a name and an individual personality – Simon, Neff, Mary, Michael, Greg, Gerard and so on – and each struggling, in their own way, to be loyal to the Gospel and to the Church, to respond both to their culture and the local pastoral needs they faced, each becoming more conscious of the affect of their words and actions on people on the other side of the world. This was a very important opening of eyes.

It meant, of course, that talk of “winning” and “losing” became less and less appropriate. It meant that people came to realise that they wanted us at all costs to find ways of staying together in one communion, recognising the huge loss if we do not. It meant that there were required some provisions to keep us together through a testing time. Although there is more to it than this, the two key proposals were “covenant” and “moratoria”.

Read it all.

The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, said that he had been “exhilarated and moved” by the Conference, and found positives in the “definite steer” towards commitment to a Covenant process and in “recognition that a covenant clearly has to have some teeth”. He described the develop­ment of structures as “a huge achievement. . . The Anglican Communion has not had over­arching structures capable of bearing this strain.”

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Michael Perham, said that “people came to realise that they wanted us at all costs to find ways of staying together in one Communion, recognising the huge loss if we do not.”

There had been some shifting of ground between “the liberal bishops who came to Lambeth very doubtful about the concept of the Covenant; the more conservative bishops and provinces clear it was needed”. Moratoriums had best been described as “a gracious season of restraint”, Bishop Perham said.

He observed: “One of the key changes in the Anglican picture as a result of Lambeth is the enhanced authority of Archbishop Rowan. Conservatives and liberals alike, as well as all those of us who don’t fit either label, were inspired by his scholarly, gentle and holy leadership.”

Read it all.

A group of 14 traditionalist bishops claim that there are “irreconcilable differences” over historic reforms that would introduce women as bishops without giving proper concessions to oponents of the move.

In a letter to 1,400 clergy who have indicated that they are considering defecting from the Church of England, they are highly critical of a decision by the General Synod – the Church’s parliament – to ignore proposals for a compromise over the divisive issue.

The Anglo-Catholic bishops have vowed to support clergy who feel unable to remain in the Church, but have pledged to fight for a better deal for traditionalists who do not believe women should be consecrated.

Signed by three senior bishops – the Rt Rev John Hind, Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn and the Rt Rev Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop in Europe – the letter will serve as a reminder to Dr Rowan Williams that there is still a battle ahead over making women bishops.

Read it all.

ANY HOPE of the Catholic Church recognising Anglican religious orders have been dashed by the consecration of women bishops, the head of the Vatican’s office for relations with other Christians told Anglican bishops attending the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said he wanted to be “clear about the new situation in our ecumenical relations”, and said: “The ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican orders by the Catholic Church.” The Anglican bishops were unsurprised by the cardinal’s words and acknowledged in their final document that other Churches were “bewildered by apparent Anglican inconsistency”. Disappointed by the fruits of formal dialogue with Rome, the bishops suggested in their document of reflections from the conference that “the future of ecumenism should be from the bottom up, not the top down. However, whatever we do at local level must accord with dialogue at the top.”

Read it all.

What emerged through the listening and reflective process could not have been predicted at the outset of the Conference. In spite of the absence of approximately 200 Gafcon Bishops the centre of gravity of the conference settled in a ”˜traditionalist’ position with regard to interpretation of Scripture and a desire to find a covenantal expression of Anglicanism. This was also the quiet and consistent lead given by the Archbishop.

What this means is:

1. The communion retains Lambeth 1:10 in its entirety with a call to do more effective listening to the different positions with regard to human sexuality.
2. We shall press ahead with improving the St Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant.
3. ”˜There is widespread support’ for the three moratoria of the Windsor Process.
4. ”˜There is a clear majority support for a pastoral forum along the lines advocated by the Windsor continuation group and a desire to see it in place speedily’

Read it all.

Notwithstanding Archbishop Rowan’s magnificent final Address, I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference, underlined by that final Address, has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible, and so not patent of “reconciliation”, without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life, in different parts of a world knit together by instantaneous e-communications.

I am not imagining that such an “orderly separation” could prove either straightforward or painless. Archbishop Rowan said two years ago that if partings came, they would be as unmanageable, and as unpredictable in their effects, as the splintering of panes of glass; and I realise that there could be especially difficult implications for the Church of England, as there continue to be for the Churches of North America. But I recognise as quite fair the summary of my and others’ views offered by the Guardian newspaper’s Editorial on August 4th: they “feel that the avoidance of confrontation this past fortnight has merely set up a worse confrontation in the future”.

If this may be the future under God of the Anglican Communion – a large “orthodox” majority continuing to look to its historic roots (I pray and hope) in the See of Canterbury yet maintaining some defined relationship with a “separated” and more “liberal” Communion of Churches centred on TEC ”“ much now depends on the GAFCON Primates and the rest of the “Global South” quickly mending the relationships between them that have been put at risk, and on all of them together reacting positively to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s stated intention to call a meeting of the Primates of the Communion early in 2009.

By then they, and the rest of us, may have a clear sense of how TEC and others are going to respond to Archbishop Rowan’s calls in his final Address on August 3rd; and the Archbishop may himself be in a position to judge whether there is a will for the Anglican Communion to go forward together in Our Lord’s service ”“ or whether he faces the terrifyingly difficult decision between initiating negotiations that may make for “an orderly separation”, or watching a still more destructive separation take place around him.

Read it all.

Sir, As bishops in the Church of England, we wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at what we regard as a gross misrepresentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

First, your front-page story (August 7) and the further material inside were presented as though he had just made a fresh statement, whereas the letters now leaked were written, in a private and personal context, between seven and eight years ago (this only became apparent six paragraphs into the report). One can only wonder at the motives behind releasing, and highlighting, these letters at this precise moment ”“ and at the way in which some churchmen are seeking to make capital of them as though they were ”˜news’.

Second, Dr Williams did not say ”˜gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ”˜equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ”˜might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relationships are not the same as marriage, ”˜because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’.

Third, the Archbishop has said repeatedly, as he did in one of the letters, that there is a difference between ”˜thinking aloud’ as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church’s teaching. He has regularly insisted, as he did in his closing address at Lambeth, that the church is right to have a basic ”˜unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from scripture and tradition.’ He has spoken out frequently against the ”˜foot-in-the-door’ tactic of divisive innovation such as the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire. As he said in that same closing address, ”˜the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding’. Nor, despite regular accusations, is this prioritising of the bishop’s task mere pragmatism or the pursuit of a ”˜quixotic goal’ of Anglican unity. It expresses what Jesus himself taught: the fundamental and deeply biblical teaching on the vital importance of church unity and of working for that unity by humility and mutual submission.

Read it carefully and read it all.

We were told that we were to treat the Conference as a pilgrimage, and it did have such a feel, but for me it was like being involved in the pilgrimage of the life cycle of the butterfly, egg, larva, caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly. The conference for me felt like the chrysalis stage. The caterpillar entering this stage spins thread around itself which hardens into a protective shell. On the campus of the University of Kent, we were in just such a protective shell, with the world and its pressures and reporters kept at bay.

Inside the chrysalis shell the caterpillar turns into a soft, squidgy jelly like blob. Its structures soften and dissolve and something new begins to appear. And then the miracle occurs, out of this soft, squidgy confusing, not now, not ‘yetness’, the body of the beautiful butterfly is formed and in the fullness of time, breaks out and flies.

At Canterbury the Anglican Church allowed itself to risk being changed through the liquid of conversation and challenge across cultures and beliefs. It’s not at all certain that minds were altered but positions might have been softened and if so there’s a chance that something beautiful might emerge in the future which is nothing quite like we’ve known so far. The Anglican Communion might yet fly anew better fit for purpose.

Read it all.

Dr [Alastair] Redfern said the topic of homosexuality came up a number of times during the conference and that it was decided more discussion was needed before any decisions were made.

But the conference had not changed his views.

He said: “The American church has consecrated as a bishop its first practising homosexual.

“I think it’s wrong and it’s wrong in the view of most of the people at the conference.

“We expect the highest standards of people in this position.”

The bishop said this did not mean he and his fellow bishops were condemnatory of homosexuality.

He said: “Just as we say to any unmarried person that you should get married before you have sex, we say the same to homosexuals.

“The teaching of our church is that sexual activity belongs in marriage between men and women, and I hold by that.”

Read it all.

What’s needed to under-write the Covenant is the further implementation of what’s known as the Windsor Process. Again there was much endorsement of the process, along with some anxiety about commitment to it. Crucially, there was support for three moratoria:

* consecration of people in same-sex relationships
* blessings of same-sex unions
* cross-border incursions by bishops.

Without these it will be very hard to move forward. Secondly there will be a Pastoral Forum which can come into action quickly in a situation of dispute, and thirdly the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting) will need to have their roles and relationships clarified to avoid the confusions and distrust of recent years.

What now?

Of course there are real concerns. Mine centre on whether the Gafcon bishops and leaders will be prepared to engage with the re-affirmed Covenant and Windsor processes, and whether the American church will hold to the moratoria. It was a huge impoverishment that the Gafcon bishops weren’t all with us (though 80 were). We need all of us to be exercising gracious restraint and committing ourselves to affection, trust and goodwill towards each other and in particular to the Archbishop of Canterbury. But such ‘affection, trust and goodwill’ are surely at the heart of any Christlike living. How can we not offer such gifts to each other?

This was a remarkable experience for all of your bishops. We were fully engaged and much inspired.

Read it all.

Two aspects that formed a continuing thread through the Conference were those of mission and support for the Millennium Development Goals. This is what the Anglican Communion does in its day to day life in the wider world. The march down Whitehall past Parliament to Lambeth Palace was deeply impressive. As one policeman said to Sheila and me, it is rare to have a demonstration in favour of something. The significance of the Millennium Development Goals was reinforced at many points in the Conference, and when the Bishops gathered in front of Lambeth Palace, we were addressed by the Prime Minister. It was a remarkable speech, in which he demonstrated his deep concern and great knowledge of these issues; it was greatly appreciated by the Bishops.

As the Conference proceeded, it was impossible not to be aware that we had the privilege of being present at a very significant occasion ”” an occasion at which it can truly be said that the Holy Spirit had led the Church through and around its difficulties into a new place.

Many expected that the Anglican Communion would not survive the Conference, but it was clear that the vast majority were determined that we should stay together within the Communion, and behind the Archbishop’s leadership. Whilst there was no expectation that all the problems would be solved, there was a confidence that a new way of being the Church was emerging, based on a willingness to listen and participate in the struggle to grapple with these issues. This made the absences all the more painful.

Ten years ago, the Conference concluded with three days in which the Resolutions developed by the various Sections were debated in a plenary session and voted on. Hurriedly written and densely worded Resolutions were passed by an assembly of people, many of whom could not have been aware of the implications of the actions, and were unable to follow the proceedings or take part in them. A moment lodged in my memory, is the occasion when a Sudanese Bishop tried to speak about violence and warfare (his wife had been killed a month beforehand), but was prevented from doing so because he had not put his name down to speak two days beforehand. It was the Archbishop’s determination that the end of this Conference should be different that shaped its structure.

The Anglican Covenant, has been developed since the Windsor Report of 2004, and has been refined at various subsequent meetings. This document was examined by the Bishops, they did not vote on it, and the process of refining the Covenant goes on (possibly for some years). It was surprising that there was such broad support for so much of the Covenant, and it is now referred to the Anglican Consultative Council in September, and will be seen by the Provinces and Dioceses after that – so that we will see it in due course.

Read it all.

Note: this is a little dated, but contains important information not found elsewhere. Because of the structure of this Lambeth, a lot of what happened will only dribble out in the days and weeks ahead and it will be a while before a coherent and clear picture emerges I think–KSH.

by Andrew Carey

Anglicans need to speak ”˜life’ to each other, rather than ”˜threatening death’ declared the Archbishop of Canterbury in his most significant plea yet to the Lambeth Conference to back his plans for both ”˜covenant’ and ”˜council’ to bring coherence and order to the Anglican Communion.

In a late scheduled Presidential address as the Conference entered its most controversial moments with the final days devoted to Bible, homosexuality and the covenant, Archbishop Williams, made what he described as a ”˜risky’ attempt to interpret both sides of the debate to each other. He also called upon them to ”˜speak from the centre’ in a spirit of generosity.

“At the moment we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life.

What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians,” he declared.

“The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness.”

He called on the bishops to speak life to each other on the basis of backing change to the communion in the form of a covenant, “that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way).”

Only such a covenant, he said, could avoid further disintegration. His acknowledgement that not all may choose to follow the covenant, was left hanging in the air, with no clear direction as to what that would mean for the nonparticipating churches. His address was greeted with no applause, but with ”˜sobriety’ and muted conversation.

The Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish, later revealed that an “inexorable logic” was emerging. He said this was of a “core communion with strengthened structures and some who will not accept that.

There will be continuing fellowship with those churches.”

He likened the relationship to that of the Anglicans and Methodists who are exploring a covenant with each other.

“A major question,” said Bishop Langrish, “is how we move towards that point. The highest degree of fellowship whilst allowing for an orderly separation.”

He said it would continue to be messy and difficult, especially in parts of North America.

Dr William’s plea for a covenant is accepted by the vast majority of Bishops at the Lambeth Conference, but among American bishops it is not seen as a foregone conclusion. Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, said afterwards, that it would take time to absorb what the Archbishop was saying. “I don’t know whether there’s going to be a covenant,” he said.

The Archbishop argued that in urging the bishops to speak from the centre, this was not a middle-point between two extremes, “that just creates another sort of political alignment.

I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.”

He said that his plans for ”˜covenant’ and ”˜council’ was his vision for the way forward.

“By this I meant that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.

He warned that future divisions could be about changes on baptism, or the abandonment of the Nicene creed. Referring to proposals from the Windsor Continuation Group for a faith and order commission, and a Pastoral Forum, he said that such bodies should carry confidence and authority.

Two groups talking past each other. The vast majority have a genuine desire to stay together for for a small minority there are two different versions of what belonging together means. Two understandings of this thing we call Anglicanism. The vast majority want to take steps towards restoring Communion.

A smaller group – whose language of communion is based on feelings – what it means to me, what I can get from it. A transactional view of communion which is much more suited to a federation or fellowship of churches. The inexorable logic which is emerging out of this conference and which what Rowan appeared to be stressing this evening is of a core communion with strengthened structures and some who will not accept that. There will be continuing fellowship with those churches.

Rowan seemed to end up in that point. A major question is how we move towards that point – the highest degree of fellowship whilst allowing for an orderly separation. A challenge to all of us. -It’s clearly going to be difficult and messy in parts of North America especially the US. Canada I’ve found in the last 10 days is in a different place from the US. Vast majority of Canadian bishops have a real sense of communion

The implication of a covenant is that you have to have procedures for holding those who are separated and damaged. Equally if we are to end up with enriched relationships – some not fully accept – pastoral Forum to enable us to get there.

Carey/Hume procedures which enabled the problems that arose from the ordination of women to be eased – something like that but I don’t want to draw too close a parallel. We’re still on Tuesday – the Archbishops speech was received with sobriety, quiet muted conversation.

–This article appeared on page 1 of the Church of England Newspaper of August 1, 2008

But it is frankly not clear what we have achieved. The last few days have involved a drafting group in spending many hours trying to write a reflection paper on the conference for all the bishops to take home with them. It describes our discussions and concerns in some detail. But on the big issues around how we hold things together in the future there isn’t yet clarity. This conference has passed no resolutions and issued no generally agreed statements. It is therefore uncertain as to what is the mind of the conference on some of the most difficult issues. Today we shall see the final version of the document which reports the conference, but there has been no process by which the members of the conference can agree the text!

So where do we go from here? I shall think about that in the next few days. I shall want to give an account of the conference to the diocese and to think through the implications of it for our overseas links. I shall also want to think about my own work as a bishop and how that has been enriched by all this. And I shall want to reflect of the design of this conference, because although it has been a rich experience it has not empowered the members to get their voice heard and to feel that the future direction of the Communion has been clarified.

Read it all

I was reading with interest your Lambeth weblog (to which I had been directed by the weblog of Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the diocese of South Carolina), and found that on Day 18, where some marvelous and encouraging steps toward consensus and agreement had been made regarding the proposed moratoria, that in your indaba group also:

“we are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers”.

I am sorry to tell you that you have apparently been lied to.

I would direct your attention to this summary document:

http://anglicandistrictofvirginia.org/content/view/79/41/

which discusses (albeit in a press release on behalf of the eleven parishes being sued by the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church) the facts of the case(s) and the determination of the court on two occasions. Perhaps the most pertinent bit of information from that is its first sentence:

“The 11 churches sued by The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia celebrated today’s Fairfax County Circuit Court ruling that confirms the constitutionality of Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code § 57-9). The 11 churches named in the lawsuit are members of the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV).”

On the website on which that background document is found, you will also find links (in the right-hand margin) to many of the associated court documents. Major newspapers in the adjoining regions, including the Washington Post (Washington, DC), the Washington Times (Washington, DC), and the Richmond Times Dispatch (Richmond, VA) have carried numerous articles as well as editorials concerning the cases, which are widely accessible via the internet. I am sure that you will be able to locate these with no trouble but if you would like I could certainly find some of them and send links to them along to you. It is likely that additional articles will appear in those and other newspapers, as the case will likely be appealed by TEC (and, unfortunately, the diocese). Some of the sadder details of the story can be discovered by reading a few of the introductory documents, including the fact that TEC intervened in and demanded an end to the process of amicable negotiation being followed by the diocese with the parishes, shortly after the investiture of K. Jefferts-Schori.

It is unfortunate that various officeholders in TEC persist in spreading untruths about the basic facts involved in these cases.

I am sorry that they attempted to deceive you, and hope that this will be of help to you in assessing their dependability in various of their other claims and statements.

Please do feel free to contact me regarding this.

Thanks to blog reader LINC for passing this long. It is really very sad to see this kind of misinformation being spread by the same TEC leaders who themselves complain of misinformation! Let me say it again–be a Berean (do you know the reference). Make sure to check the documentation carefully yourself–KSH.

This morning a minor miracle takes place. Our Indaba group, drawn almost from every nation under heaven, agrees all but unanimously on the way ahead for the Anglican Communion. We agree to a moratorium on actively gay bishops, on same-sex blessings and incursions from other provinces until a Covenant can be drawn up.

We agree to a Pastoral Forum to advise the Archbishop of Canterbury and provide mediation for disputes between provinces or dioceses.

We make several suggestions for strengthening and improving the “Instruments of Communion” including the idea that a future Archbishop of Canterbury might be elected from across the world.

We should strengthen the teaching office and decision-making ability of the Lambeth Conference.

The constituencies of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting need sorting out; at present they are not representative and America dominates.

Forty-three out of forty-five bishops agree to the moratoria and the Pastoral Forum and the other two more or less cancel each other out. There is one bishop who says that this would be too hard for his gay and lesbian people and another who says that the American church must repent before we can restore fellowship.

Read it all.

The only way to stay sane and be courteous is to pass a rigid self-denying ordinance that “I will only use of other people designations they use of themselves.” This could helpfully be supplemented by a simple Bart Simpson Blackboard resolution: “I will not hi-jack other people’s labels to spite my enemies.” If all that came out of this Lambeth were a few people resolving along these lines, that would be grief to the weasels, and joy to the world.

Read it all.

[I need to say]…that joy and laughter have characterised much of the Lambeth Conference. This evening I had two experiences which almost seem contrary to the same context.

First I went to the final ‘hearing’ on the ‘Reflections’ which will report on the conference. This was a rather ridiculous meeting in an overcrowded lecture theatre in which contributors tried to redraft texts they had only just seen. The status of the final report from the conference remains unclear – and will do so until tomorrow – and bishops were clearly struggling with it. Because the report contains the substance reported from the Indaba Groups, it is selective and descriptive rather than prescriptive and final. If there is to be a criticism of the process we have experienced here, it is simply that there is insufficient time to come up with a properly drafted statement that can command the unanimous support of the bishops. The process might have proved to be weak at this point and some people predicted this might happen.

But it also exposes the anxieties of those who cannot bear not being in control. The key outcome of this conference has been the relationships built, the connections made, the learning based on genuine respectful listening and the willingness to commit to a generous space for the future. This cannot be measured on a balance sheet or by signatures on a page. I am not alone in being glad that this is the case as we need to find new ways of having our conversations and disagreements in the Church of God. What we have experienced here offers a new way forward for the future. Bishops of differing opinions and stances have vowed to remain in regular contact in order to belong together in the Communion and further the conversations.

The Vatican observer sitting next to me at the beginning of this meeting was staggered that we would handle textual matters and processes in such a naff way and eventually left expressing some bewilderment before he did.

That said, however, the Spirit is at work here and people are working hard to produce a report that will give the flavour of the conference and help describe what it was about – rather than simply issue a statement that people can either sign up to or ignore.

Read it all (the timestamp is Sunday 3 August 2008 – 12:53am).

Among the key proposals, they suggest a new framework that could censure rebellious Churches and a central “pastoral forum” to settle disputes.

However, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, said that the Archbishop’s plan to maintain unity lacked a sense of urgency and was unlikely to work.

“The Lambeth Conference is required to do something rather than live down to the worst expectations of the bishops who stayed away,” he said.

“We need to negotiate a separation in the Communion sooner rather than later, to leave the strongest possibility of remaining in some kind of fellowship.”

Bishop Scott-Joynt said that he was concerned that traditional Churches in Africa would break away unless the Lambeth Conference delivers a clear definition of what Anglicanism represents in the final report.

Read it all.

Watch it all.

Those who have been supporting the process of Bible Study followed by an Indaba were vindicated this morning. I sat, listened and contributed as one of 40 bishops engaging with issues in human sexuality. As far as I could tell, everyone was able to make a contribution and the challenges facing us were clarified. There was no ”˜grandstanding’ and people were able to make their contribution without having to run the gauntlet of a plenary of 660 bishops – which would have ensured that only a minority were heard.

In my Indaba, one thing about which there was unanimity was that our attitude to homosexual people must be positive, generous and full of Christian love. There, however, the unanimity ended. In my Bible Study group there had been a recognition that we are each trying to be faithful to God and to our understanding of the nature and authority of scripture. By the time we came to the Indaba I detected the underlying presumption that a ”˜real Christian’ is essentially fundamentalist when it comes to using the Bible.

Read it all.

Now of course the point of all that is not simply an interesting set of skirmishes about different ideas. The point is that these ideas had legs, and went about in the ancient world making things happen. They altered the way you saw things, the way you did things, the goals you set yourself and the ways you ordered your world and society. From the beginning no serious Christian has been able to say ”˜this is my culture, so I must adapt the gospel to fit within it’, just as no serious Christian has been able to say ”˜this is my surrounding culture, so I must oppose it tooth and nail’. Christians are neither chameleons, changing colour to suit their surroundings, nor rhinoceroses, ready to charge at anything in sight. There is no straightforward transference between any item of ordinary culture and the gospel, since all has been distorted by evil; but likewise there is nothing so twisted that it cannot be redeemed, and nothing evil in itself. The Christian is thus committed, precisely as a careful reader of scripture, to a nuanced reading of culture and a nuanced understanding of the response of the gospel to different elements of culture. You can see this in Philippians, where Paul is clear that as a Christian you must live your public life in a manner worthy of the gospel, and that whatever is pure, lovely and of good report must be celebrated ”“ but also that Jesus is Lord while Caesar isn’t, and that we are commanded to shine like lights in a dark world. There are no short cuts here, no easy answers. Prayer, scripture and complex negotiation are the order of the day.

There is of course a very particular Anglican spin to some of this. Many parts of the older Anglican world, not least here in England itself, have become very used to going with the flow of the culture, on the older assumption that basically England was a Christian country so that the Church would not be compromised if it reflected the local social and cultural mores. That strand of Anglicanism has always been in danger of simply acting as Chaplain to whatever happened to be going on at the time, whether it was blessing bombs and bullets in the first world war or going to tea at Buckingham Palace. Within that world, the Bible has often been quietly truncated. We don’t like the bits about judgment, so we miss them out. We are embarrassed by the bits about sex, so we miss them out too ”“ and then we wonder why, in a world full of hell and sex, people imagine the Bible is irrelevant! The Bible is a kind of spiritual Rorschach test: if you find you’re cutting bits out, or adding bits in, it may be a sign that you’re capitulating to cultural pressure. Equally, of course, there are many parts of the Anglican world where nothing but confrontation has been possible for a long time, and there people may have to learn the difficult lesson that actually the world is still charged with the grandeur of God, and that the biblical Christian must learn to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, no matter who they are, what they believe or how they behave. It is crucial to our vocation, and to our particular vocation granted our particular histories, that we rediscover the art, which itself is rooted in scripture, of discriminating (as Paul says) between things that differ, and of affirming what can and must be affirmed and opposing what can and must be opposed. Those of us who are involved in the business of politics and government know that this is a difficult and often thankless task, but it must be undertaken.

Read it all.

Tomorrow is sex day here at Canterbury, so tonight I’m missing any number of receptions being hosted by groups wanting to get the last word to bishops in advance. Meanwhile the work on the “conference document”, whatever that will turn out to be, continues apace; the listeners draft texts which we then meet each afternoon to critique. Today’s session was remarkable only for the fact that hardly any USA bishops spoke, otherwise we made the usual range of strengthening and clarifying amendments that 600 articulate adults are always going to be able to provide. We’re being told that a number of people have responded to Rowan’s question last night about what they might offer in generosity to those of an opposing view. There’ll be more discussion on that tomorrow.

Read it all.

The moral and spiritual authority of Rowan is obvious. When people criticise him for lack of leadership, they need to realise what he is doing here. In the light of the Scriptures and faithful to Christian history he seeks to enable Christians of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to recognise the call of Christ to a ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the world. He refuses to let us off the hook by allowing us to indulge in politics without being reminded of the challenging and costly vocation to carry a cross and lay down our life (and our rights). His call to different wings of the Church to offer a ‘generous love’ to those on other sides is not the appeal of a weak man. In true Christian – and cruciform – style, he stands between people and, arms outstretched – holds them together even though in doing so he is pulled apart. To call this ‘weak leadership’ is to call the Cross a pointless gesture.

Rowan did something risky but powerful. He tried to articulate – give voice to – the thinking and feelings of people on different sides of our current divides. I think he demonstrated his real ability to understand and express what different people are thinking and saying. He gave generous expression to their point of view and enabled us to see what it feels like to think the way ‘the other’ does. In so doing, he also exposed the dark sides of passionately felt theological and ecclesiological positions. This was a brutally honest expression.

The problem might be, however, that the only people to hear it might be those who are able to hear anyway. Those who are already entrenched in their prejudiced positions will probably prove unable to hear and respond to Rowan’s call for the generosity commanded by Jesus. In fact, he said: ‘We can only do this [sacrifice for the sake of others] if we are first captured by the true centre – the generosity of God [who laid down his life for us in the first place].’ His statement that ‘we seem to be threatening death to each other, not offering life’ is simply and unarguably true. ‘We need to speak life to each other’, he said – and the need is obvious.

The questions remain….

Read it all (the entry timestamp is Wednesday 30 July 2008 – 12:01am).

The other thing I have been musing on today is how different people approach a conference like this – especially when they are used to running things and cannot control this one. I attended a conference in Wittenberg, Germany, last year when the German Church (EKD) addressed its ten year reform programme under the title ‘Church of Freedom’ (Kirche der Freiheit). The ‘Impulspapier’ divided the church’s task into twelve elements that then formed the content of the conference. At the first plenary session a longstanding, more traditional bishop stood up and took the document apart. He claimed that the Church is not the ‘Church of Freedom’, but the Church of Jesus Christ. This clever statement then enabled several people to dismiss the report and the whole process. They had found the gap – the error – and therefore were absolved from any responsibility to engage with it.

I am reminded of this not because I think this a German problem, but because I think this is how powerful people behave when they don’t like being powerless. I think there are bishops here who are behaving like this and find endless fault in everything. I would like to go on a conference organised by them and show them what it is like to have people identify (oh so cleverly) all the other ways in which it could have been done.

I think this process has been remarkable….
If others haven’t engaged with it and gained from it, that’s too bad. But it is only by engaging with it that you stand any chance of getting any gain from it. Furthermore, I am fully committed to getting stuck into whatever we come out with at the end of this conference – whether that be something good or something a bit hopeless. The Church has gone through two millennia of ups and downs and threats and challenges and now is no different. After all, the Church is not the kingdom of God – we are called to be a sign of the Kingdom and that impacts (drives?) not only what we believe but how we live together.

This is significant in the light of this afternoon’s second ‘hearing’. Of 27 speakers, 23 were westerners (American, English, Irish, Canadian and Australian[)]. Of those 23, 15 were from TEC and they ran the gamut of TEC complexions. Once again, they spoke with passion and clarity, but what was not said about their province was as significant as what they did say. What I think was most significant about this was that the Americans cannot say that their voice has not been listened to and heard. (The other speakers were from Sudan, South India and Egypt.)

Read it all (timestamp of entry is Monday 28 July 2008 – 06:24pm)

CT: Some conservatives were anxious in coming to Lambeth and some here have actually said they don’t feel any hope towards the future of the Anglican Communion. Do you share those feelings?

TW: I always tell my staff at home to distinguish between feelings and thinking because your feelings will come and go if you are tired or in a meeting perhaps and then you will feel like all hope is lost. You have to go back and pray and think.

The situation is still extremely complex. The Archbishop of Canterbury said when he invited us all that if you accept this invitation you are accepting to work with the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. The Archbishop reiterated that on Sunday afternoon and has reiterated it publicly several times.

If the Windsor Report is properly followed through and if the Covenant process actually gets somewhere where it is designed to get then things can happen which will give hope to a lot of people who are at present in danger of losing hope. I say that in general terms because I am not in charge of the process, I’m not on the group for taking forward either of those things. So I am not entirely sure what will happen with either of them and to put it devoutly I am not sure how the Holy Spirit will lead those who are working on those things.

CT: So you are open to the Covenant?

TW: Yes, sure. We have to be. In the last few Lambeths, many people believed they were working in a parliamentary style process with big sessions and big debates that would polarise people instantly and that isn’t necessarily the right way of doing Christian decision making. So the Archbishop has taken the risk ”“ and it is a risk – of abandoning that model and saying let’s pray together, work together and be together in all sorts of contexts and we will see what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church in the midst of that.

Read it all.

Second, there is a sense that the Conference has done all its preliminary work, has got to know one another, and is now ready for the final seven days, beginning on Monday (tomorrow, Sunday, is more or less a rest day and that’s how I intend to spend it). The tricky thing now is that there are several different processes going on simultaneously which are designed to come together into some kind of ”˜reflection’, or even ”˜statement’, but nobody (except perhaps the planning group?) has a clear idea of how precisely this will happen. There are several sessions labelled ”˜conference reflection’ as the week develops, and these will presumably be used as plenaries to discuss the major issues that are coming up. +Rowan said, when he invited us all fourteen months ago, that the point of the Conference was to take forward the work of the Windsor Report on the one hand and the Covenant proposals, which nest within Windsor, on the other. We are having ”˜hearings’ and other sessions on aspects of these, which should then eventually dovetail with the ”˜Indaba’ group processes (they report to a central secretariat which will try to pull their insights together). I spoke at a ”˜self-select group’ yesterday on the Windsor/Covenant theme and was subjected to a barrage of anxious and fearful American comments, including two who were objecting that the Covenant seemed to be ”˜anxious and fearful’. That’s the sort of double-edged conversation you tend to have from time to time . . . There is another ”˜hearing’ on Monday to take forward the Windsor process, and we are waiting for that quite eagerly to see what the group who have been working on it will come up with. It’s all supposed to come together towards the end of the week, and this is where, please, you will focus your prayers, that we may be given wisdom faithfully to discern God’s will and the leading of the Spirit, and how our commitment to live together under scripture (which we embody daily in the Bible Studies) will translate into actual policies and healing and life for our beloved Communion.

Read it carefully and read it all.

The Indaba process is, I think, evolving. It seems to have begun like a Western ecumenical Lent group – buzz in pairs, talk in quartets, report back with coloured pens and stick it all on the wall and have bright ideas about what is strikingly common and what is strikingly missing. The problem has been Western haste – five topics that would each keep a UN department fully deployed for years despatched in half a morning – instead of (as I understand it) a long period of listening and consultation on a single pressing matter – a meeting lasting days. But ‘they’ are listening to us and it should evolve….

In short, the Anglican Communion, via its Indaba groups and its plenaries at Lambeth, needs to head for a new settlement. One possibility is a split into evangelical and liberal Communions (in which there might be room still for traditionalists of all stripes in the former – if Sidney behaves on lay presidency and evangelicals don’t get as upset about Mary as one or two of them seemed to be when Cardinal Diaz gave us his memorable phrase Fiat, Magnificat and Stabat as models of Christian discipleship). The other is to say that the cork is out of the bottle on women’s ordination but we (which wouldn’t include me) could nonetheless ‘all’ regroup round a Covenant-monitored common hermeneutic (which certainly could not include serial monogamy or homosexual marriage) and maintain the Communion, which would be a godly thing and faithful to the Lord’s high priestly prayer.

Read it all.

[The indaba process’s] main thrust is to enable every member of the group to take responsibility for the process and agreed outcome. The group I am in has witnessed some very powerful and moving exchanges.

For an American liberal to hear how his action has led to the deaths of fellow Anglicans in another part of the world is not easy. There is work to do here and no guarantees that the hearing will turn to understanding; but that will not be the fault of the process.

Whatever the final outcome next week, what cannot be denied is that this has offered a new experience and a new way of doing our business.

Rather than displace serious attention to hard issues, these groups have provided a context of respectful relationship in which hard things can be said and heard.

Many western liberals now understand better how their actions affect people in New Guinea and Tanzania. And many Africans now understand better that the assumptions they bring to the debates also need to be checked.

Read it all.

The Communion’s big agenda must flow from the love of God and not omit the god-ward axis in Micah’s challenge to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God.

At the same time we should not underestimate the significance of developing our institutional life.

At a time when the hegemony of the Western World is giving way to a multi-polar world in which the cultures of Asia and Africa will rightly have an increasing voice it is time to develop our arrangements for conversation, cooperation and mutual accountability.

We should draw on the history and the thought of the whole Christian church in attempting to discern the fundamental principles which have shaped the Anglican engagement with God and neighbour thus far.

In this task we cannot do without the bishops who are not at this conference. Their absence is a real loss.

Read it all