The programme was certainly tight and finely controlled. In the event the controversial issues of the Covenant and the Communion, together with issues around human sexuality were left until the last few days. The hope was that the relationships built before we took these issues would help us stick together as we came to confront the differences that still divide the communion. The general opinion was that this did happen. Bishops listened more attentively and heard the different reactions from around the communion and did so in a calm and measured way. That is not to say that no passion was expressed about deeply held convictions.

My experience was to be part of a series of meetings in which it became dear that different situations demanded different responses and there was mutual respect shown for these various positions. They were basically irreconcilable and remained so yet the determination to stay in dialogue and to go on working with these dashing positions was what marked out the potential of our Communion as distinctive.

There is dearly more work to be done but with some hope of a way forward. The fact is that neither of the extreme positions if I can call them that can be expected to give up what they believe God has called them to witness to as part of the life of their Province. There may be a way through but it is not dear yet where it would take us – meanwhile we hold to the position that we are in pending further provision in the Communion to take account of the need for some enlarged thinking. Whether the proposed Pastoral Forum to take over the care of congregations that have chosen to renounce the leadership of their Diocesan Bishop can have any place in this process I personally doubt.

Read it all.

Today, we feel that the Episcopal Church is viewed by the public through a blurry lens. Their view is distorted by the prominence given in the media to the dispute over wedge issues like gay bishops and female clergy. Press reports of the Lambeth conference or the General Convention inevitably play up these rifts. One might think that all mainstream Episcopal congregations spend most of their time in church discussing how to advance gay and female clergy. For the mainstream congregations that we are familiar with the reality is completely different. Our services focus on the Gospel and the life and teachings of Jesus. We feel that many breakaway parishes don’t believe this reality, which is an example of the sort of accusation of false motives and hidden agendas that Guinness decries in his Manifesto.

The rift in the global Anglican Communion can and must be repaired through civil dialogue. This dialogue is impossible when parties refuse to show up at the table as happened at Lambeth. The differences among the vast majority are not as great as portrayed. We and other prominent Episcopalians will release a “Statement of Beliefs” that explains exactly what the beliefs of mainstream Episcopalians are. Among these beliefs are, not only that the risen Christ is “the way and the truth and the life,” but also those values that Jesus lived out. He embraced the outcast and downtrodden, believed in inclusion far more than exclusion. He despised most hypocrisy and sanctimony. He believed in equity and justice and Christians making the most of their gifts in service to God. Surely, that represents a common basis for belief far greater than the sum of those points on which we differ.

Read it all.

The Lambeth ceasefire has collapsed in Canada after the Diocese of New Westminster moved to reassert “control” over two conservative congregations who had broken with Bishop Michael Ingham to join the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC).

On Aug 26 the Dean and Chancellor of New Westminster, acting on behalf of the vacationing Bishop Ingham, invoked the Canadian Church’s Canon 15 and sought to dismiss the wardens and parochial trustees of two parishes: St Matthew’s Abbotsford and St Matthias & St Luke in Vancouver, replacing them with nominees loyal to the diocese.

The diocese had taken these steps “to remove clergy who have left the Anglican Church of Canada rather than accepting the decisions of its local and national governing bodies,” a press statement said.

Read the whole article.

The three primates ”“ Archbishop Hiltz, Archbishop de Andrade, and Bishop Jefferts Schori ”“ have repeatedly asked Archbishop Venables to stop meddling in the internal affairs of their provinces. Archbishop Venables has, on his own accord, been providing episcopal oversight to churches that are in serious theological dispute with their respective provinces over the issue of sexuality. Archbishop Williams has said he will do his best to facilitate the request.

In an interview, Archbishop Hiltz said the Canadian bishops will have “a very focused conversation” around how they understand the call for moratoria. He said there are conflicting interpretations on what the moratorium means, with some thinking it means not having any new blessings, and some interpreting it as retroactive, which would require a synod like New Westminster to rescind its 2002 motion that allowed same-sex blessings in their diocese. He added that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to bishops about the moratoria was also “significant.” Archbishop Williams had acknowledged that, while the call for moratoria received support from “a strong majority” at the conference, he was nonetheless aware of the “conscientious difficulties this posed for some.”

Archbishop Hiltz said that the diocesan bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, “rightly pointed out that it’s not for him to rescind the motion; the synod has to debate the issue.” The primate said that he’d be “very surprised if they rescind that motion.”

Read it all.

A friend who is deeply read in Anglican history and theology predicted that Lambeth 2008 would give a negative response to gay and lesbian people on the matter of their full inclusion in the life and orders of the church and that at Lambeth 2018 the discussion would be about banning women priests and bishops. So far his prediction has come fairly accurately true. On this most perplexing matter dividing our communion, the Lambeth’s Reflections do not even clearly call for continuing dialogue and listening to gay and lesbian people””despite the resolutions of Lambeth 1998.

From a theological perspective, the finest documents to emerge from this Lambeth Conference were the Archbishop of Canterbury’s presidential addresses, but it is also clear that many of the other addresses were rich in theological content (eg. the Chief Rabbi’s lecture on Covenant). From an ecclesiological perspective, his decision to make this Lambeth a conference has been, in my view, a major step forward. The Reflections document issued at the end is by its very nature vague, and reflective of the multiplicity of positions on most of the questions that perplex us. This may be a healthy stage of conversation; it offers us all a clearer picture of the range of diversity and contexts in which we seek to live our mission.

More depressing, in my view, is that despite all protestations to the contrary and arguments about confrontation with Islam in Africa and elsewhere, the evangelical side of Anglicanism is leading us more and more toward a form of Christianity which is simply another variant of fundamentalist Islam….

Read the whole piece.

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, has expressed “frustration” that the Canadian church has not been given an opportunity to present its situation with regards to the blessing of same-sex unions during hearings conducted by a body formed to determine the next course of action for the Anglican Communion to salvage its fractured unity.

Archbishop Hiltz, who attended the once-a-decade conference of the world’s Anglican bishops here, said that it would be “a huge challenge” to merge what has been happening in bishops’ discussion groups, called indaba, with what the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) has been recommending as the way forward for the Communion.

“I think what we’re running into is a kind of difficult rubbing between the indaba process which has been in large measure very conversational, very relational” and the work of the WCG, which is “seeking to find structures and procedures whereby we can remain in communion with one another,” said Archbishop Hiltz.

Read the whole article.

The conference was successful in accomplishing the agenda of not talking about the moral and theological vacuum the church has become, [Jeff] Garrety said.

“The archbishop has never spoken out against those married homosexual priests,” he said. “Silence on a subject usually means agreement. And the vast majority of the Anglican Communion believes the opposite of him.”

Rev. Sean Ferrell said from his understanding of what happened, the conference was a success. Ferrell is rector of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.

The archbishop designed the Lambeth conference’s format in a way to build relationships, Ferrell said.

“He organized it so bishops could engage and talk together and meet together over Bible studies,” he said. “As a result, after spending time together and studying the scriptures together, the bishops didn’t do any fighting.”

The meeting deepened the relationships of the bishops in the Anglican Communion, Ferrell said.

“Now they have a deeper and stronger relationship with bishops in other provinces in the Anglican Communion,” he said. “I find that to be a positive development.”

Read it all.

All the Primates have been sent copies of Dr [Rowan] Williams’s post-Con­ference reflections; but on Wednes­day the promised “bridge-building” letters had still not been sent out. “I know it is being worked on in the office, and it is in process. But the letters have not physically gone out to everyone absent yet,” a source in the Anglican Communion Office said.

The press officer, Canon Jim Rosen­thal, confirmed later in the day that they would be sent out at the end of the week.

Dr Williams and Canon Kearon have both been on leave.

The Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, who is the newly appointed secretary of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), told The Guardian last week: “At Lambeth there was talk of building bridges, but as far as I know there has been no approach made.”

His remarks followed the publica­tion of a communiqué from the GAFCON Primates’ Council’s first meeting, held in London from 20 to 22 August. The five Primates ”” of Nigeria, the Southern Cone, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda ”” who formed the Council said that GAFCON “continues its advance”. They had found no reason “to make us hesitate from the course we are taking”.

They warned that a breach of the three Windsor Process moratoriums supported widely at the Lambeth Conference ”” no episcopal ordina-tions of partnered homosexual people, no blessing of same-sex unions, and no cross-border incur-sions by bishops ”” would lead to the Communion’s “fracture”.

Read it all.

I believe that this gathering had a great chance to move forward in relationship building, and to some extent, as I have mentioned earlier, it did. But when it came to addressing the pressing needs of the Communion to develop a global Anglican strategy to address the issues of disease, poverty, illiteracy, the environment and state-sponsored violence against civilian populations, this conference succumbed to “blaming the victims.” As in 1998, the victims are those whose sexual orientation happens to be different from the majority. It is far easier to blame our divisions and our inability to act as a united Communion to address pressing global issues on those least able to defend themselves. Blaming the least among us continues to divert our attention away from the issues that threaten the very existence of humankind and the environmental health of our planet.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for sacrifices to be made to keep the garment of the Communion together. And for the American and Canadian churches, that clearly means sacrificing once again the full participation of gay and lesbian persons in the life of our church. I for one will not ask for any more sacrifices to be made by persons in our church who have been made outcasts because of their sexual orientation.

This Lambeth Conference could have been a positive turning point for the Anglican Communion, but instead the powers that be chose to seek a middle way that is neither “the middle” nor “the way.” It will therefore be up to bishops from around the Communion who have continuing partner and companion relationships to work toward a more holistic view of the church. The Anglican Communion must face into the hard truth that when we scapegoat and victimize one group of people in the church, all of us become victims of our own prejudice and sinfulness.

Read it all.

It was made starkly clear by the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) that actions moving toward affirming same-sex unions, including those in the Anglican Church of Canada, have increased the danger of fracture in the Communion. The WCG’s call to observe the Windsor Report’s moratorium on such rites, seconded by Archbishop Williams, was widely supported by the bishops. Most of the bishops also seemed to concur with Archbishop Williams’ challenge to receive the Covenant as the best hope for an enduring Communion. Only as we as a church receive the Covenant positively do we have the best chance of remaining full participants in the Communion. As any marriage counselor will tell you, holding a family together finally means facing hard truths and making sacrifices.

A theme of Archbishop Williams’ addresses was thinking and acting out of “the centre” of our faith. Such a centre implies accountability to one another in important matters of doctrine and practice on behalf of the Church catholic. He said this as centrifugal forces of a confessional right and a revisionist left strain at our Communion. I wonder if Archbishop Williams didn’t have the voice of another melancholic Celt in the back of his mind: “Things fall apart/ the centre cannot hold”¦”

We give thanks for the bishops’ experiences of unity at Lambeth, and for proposed new means to support it. But will the centre hold? That depends in part on our own church. Time may soon tell.

Read it all.

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he wasn’t surprised with the Lambeth Conference’s call for a moratorium on actions that have led to divisions over sexuality. He said that bishops needed to be honest that this has been “a huge, huge challenge to implement.”

Archbishop Hiltz said that the moratorium and other recommendations are matters for the Canadian house of bishops and the Council of General Synod ”“ the church’s governing body between General Synods ”“ to discuss. Bishops were also presented with a proposal to create a pastoral forum that would create a “safe space” for conservative Anglicans who have left their churches.

There was wide agreement that moratoria on same-sex blessings, the ordination of gay bishops and cross-border interventions by conservative bishops would help to heal the conflict engulfing the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury warned that failure to heed the call would put the Communion “in grave peril.”

Read it all.

SPRIT: So where from here?

+JMS: It depends much on the will of the Communion. Bishops acting unilaterally do not help this. The future of the Communion depends on those who are willing to forgo what they perceive to be their rights and their prerogatives and agree to live with and for others. We’ve been deaf to that call. It just depends on the will of those who are in leadership and who say, you know, the time has come to work together in unity. As far as I’m concerned as diocesan bishop, we have strong ties and relationships with the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Global South. The Global South bishops invited both Bishop Paul and me to a meeting with them. We cherish those relationships, and we will continue to witness and carry out our part in the Anglican Communion.

+PEL: I don’t know how I can expand upon that. We need to be faithful to the Scriptures and our Lord’s command to go forth into the world, but one of the things I’m trying to live into is what it means to be faithful to the vows I took when I was consecrated. There are some significant vows there. I think the House of Bishops and all bishops would do well to read those every day.

+JMS: It’s hard to know exactly what happened there until ”” it’s one of those odd things. It’s hard to know what happened at the meeting until you get well beyond it.

+PEL: It’s not unlike Jacob wrestling with God at Peniel (Gen. 32:30). He didn’t know it was God until after the fact. And that’s what sometimes happens during crises. You live into that crisis and do the wrestling ”” and we did some. I mean, it wasn’t all fun and games. Some hard things were said in those indaba groups.
+JMS: I like that. And I can think of Moses’ supporters saying to Moses after he had gone up on Sinai, “What happened?” We’ll see. It’s sort of the nature of God. God says to Moses, “I will be with you. That’s my name.” That’s all we can do ”” live in faith that God will be faithful.

Read it all.

Read it all.

THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION is alive and vibrant.

It has survived another Lambeth Conference, a bit bruised, battered and fragmented. Bishops at Canterbury rallied around pertinent issues of social justice, poverty and the environment, and they reached the only conclusion they could on human sexuality: compromise.

That is what happens within a healthy family: members listen to each other, give a little, take a little, and reach a compromise. The result: both poles in the human sexuality debate are left frustrated and eager to battle another day, but it is the “middle road” ”“ via media — that has won the day.

The Anglican Communion emerged ”“ as it always does after a Lambeth Conference — a church struggling to be faithful to scripture and relevant to today’s society. Theologians and church leaders will debate the importance of Lambeth 2008 for some time to come; a sort of ecclesiastical navel-gazing. This issue of The Journal is dedicating an entire supplement to Lambeth.

Read it all.

Division over homosexuality and women bishops does exist “across the spectrum” within the Anglican Church, Archbishop Thabo Makgoba has said – but that is an indication of a church that is facing its challenges.

The archbishop, who returned from the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England, this month, said final decisions had not yet been made on contentious issues such as women clergy and the ordination of gay bishops, but they had been thoroughly discussed.

He acknowledged that there were divisions on these matters within all their dioceses across the world. However, it could not be seen as a split between liberals and conservatives as this was an “artificial divide”.

“The reality across the spectrum, not just in South Africa, is that some parts of the communion are wrestling with issues such as ordaining women bishops, which we have done for 12 years already.

“I don’t see this as a problem, but an indication of a church that is alive, and prepared to face the contextual realities and their challenges,” he said.

Read it all.

Much of today’s building is relatively “modern,” about 600 years old, but its history began in 597 A.D. when St. Augustine at the behest of Pope Gregory the Great arrived with 40 monks, built a church and nurtured Christianity on the soil of Britain.

Canterbury became a significant stop on the pilgrim route to Rome, and in 1170 an event occurred that transformed it into a shrine. Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket was murdered by four knights acting, they thought, on the desires of King Henry II. Four years later, Henry himself, wearing sackcloth, was at the altar being beaten by monks as penance for the deed.

When the current archbishop (the 104th) led retreat and worship, he wasn’t far from the spot where one of his predecessors embodied a clash between spiritual and temporal power.

The conflicts roiling today’s Anglican Communion were present at the conference, but the most valuable contribution Canterbury and the cathedral brought was a sense of perspective. The disagreements are just as real and just as serious as they were 500 or 1000 years ago, but the church as the body of Christ survives and the physical places of Canterbury transmit an awareness that we who are alive today continue to tell the great story of humanity’s encounter with the divine. For Anglicans, for Episcopalians, it’s not a bad heritage to share.

Read it all.

Recognizing the division and brokenness which currently exists, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated in his August 2008 Pastoral Letter reflecting on Lambeth, “The Conference was not a time for making new laws or for binding decisions”¦The Conference Design Group believed strongly that the chief need of our Communion at the moment was the rebuilding of relationships ”“ the rebuilding of trust in one another ”“ and of confidence in our Anglican identity. And it was with this in mind that they planned for a very different sort of Conference, determined to allow every bishop’s voice to be heard”¦”

Unfortunately while ample opportunity was in fact given for bishops to speak during the daily Bible studies, Indaba Groups, self-select sessions, and plenary sessions, the western design of much of the Conference made speaking uncomfortable for many non-westerners and — as earlier attested to by Archbishop Orombi, the fact that one speaks does not necessarily mean they have been heard. The Anglican Communion has been encouraged for over ten years now to participate in a “listening process” as a means of working through the issues that divide us. While I am a firm believer in the importance of listening, even to those that we disagree with, unfortunately when dealing as we currently are with what I have come to believe are theologically irreconcilable differences in the views passionately held by each side of the debate on issues of the authority of Holy Scripture and human sexuality, I seriously question the chance of reconciliation by those on either end of the theological spectrum, barring a Damascus Road experience by one side or the other. No doubt, each side believes it is the other side that Jesus needs to zap.

This belief was confirmed at Lambeth while listening to some of the debates regarding homosexuality. During one of the sessions, an African bishop made an impassioned call upon the West to restrain from blessing same-sex unions and ordaining individuals engaged in homosexual lifestyles, stating that the Moslem extremists in his country are looking for any reason to attack and kill Anglican Christians. He said the revisionist actions of the West are giving them all the reason they need, resulting in the death and imprisonment of many of his people. Equally passionate, but from the opposite perspective, two Episcopal bishops spoke about justice for their gay and lesbian clergy and people, proclaiming their strong unceasing support for gay rights and that they would not stop the blessing of same sex unions in their diocese.

Unfortunately in many cases, the very ones calling for others to listen are unwilling to listen themselves. For some, the listening process will not be complete or successful until the other side is worn down and finally agrees with their position. Given the current debate on issues of human sexuality, when virtually every argument both for and against homosexual behavior, sex outside of marriage, and abortion have already been made numerous times over, the question ultimately must be asked ”“ When is enough, enough? The longer the debate goes on, the more divided we seem to become and the more distracted we are from proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A major distinction between GAFCON and Lambeth concerning this issue is that for GAFCON, the debate seems to be over, for Lambeth, no end is in sight.

Read it all.

While I and a number of others are not in favor of an Anglican Covenant, I believe it is something that is going to happen. Therefore The Episcopal Church needs to be fully part of the conversation which forms it. — A “document” will be the result of the indaba group conversations, but this should not be interpreted as the last word. There are voices yet to be heard. Each Province of the Anglican Communion will have an opportunity to respond to the document. This will take time.

Many were looking for a definitive outcome of the Lambeth Conference. “What will you tell the people back home?” was a question frequently asked by the press and by visitors to the Conference. I believe the answer to that question has less to do with the issues we wrestled with than with what evolved during the process of Lambeth 2008. My answer is that we moved closer to God, we grounded ourselves in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we realized more fully the importance of a worldwide Anglican Communion. We focused on the spiritual, rather than the political. Those who came to Lambeth with heightened expectations will be disappointed. Under the leadership of Archbishop Williams, we avoided the cultural aspect of creating winners and losers. We agreed that we are Church in different contexts, and we agreed to continue our journey together. I believe Lambeth has been a huge success. It is a beginning, not an end. Our trust in one another is greatly improved and “we” are the outcome of the Conference.

Read it all.

Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions. There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved. In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a ‘Pastoral Forum’ as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions.

Importantly, it was recognized that all these matters involved serious reflection on the Christian doctrine of human nature and a continuing deepening of our understanding of Christian marriage. A joint session with bishops and spouses also reminded us that broader moral issues about power and violence in relations between men and women needed attention if we were to speak credibly to the tensions and sufferings of those we serve.

Third, there was a general desire to find better ways of managing our business as a Communion. Many participants believed that the indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions, was such a necessary aspect of understanding what the questions might be that they expressed the desire to see the method used more widely ”“ and to continue among themselves the conversations begun in Canterbury. This is an important steer for the meetings of the Primates and the ACC which will be taking place in the first half of next year, and I shall be seeking to identify the resources we shall need in order to take forward some of the proposals about our structures and methods.

Read it all.

The press asked who was running the conference. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave five retreat addresses, three presidential addresses, chaired the five evening plenary presentations from guest speakers, and preached the final sermon. The press were told he was the common figure in meetings of the Design Team, the Anglican Communion Office and Lambeth Palace Staff meetings.
He did not consult the primates before indicating at the final press conference that the future agenda was the moratoria and the pastoral forum. Some bishops noted that the pope always speaks with his bishops rather than to his bishops. There was much speaking of people’s respect, loyalty and affection for Archbishop Williams. If people say that of a primate in Africa, this is regarded as fawning on an autocratic tribal chief. The Lambeth Conference Network in the Anglican Communion seems to have have been overtaken by celebrity culture. Is this style a reaction to criticism of lack of leadership?

The Culture of Lambeth was of Inclusive Church. The opening service was on the theme of diversity in unity. Most self-select sessions were from the liberal perspective. The market place was dominated by gay organisations.

The Archbishop said in his second presidential address: ”And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre. 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.”

What is the centre which is the heart of our identity as Anglicans? Is it defined by the faith, or is it defined by inclusion?
Traditional Anglican liberalism was founded on core Christian truths and commitments. Secular liberalism denies that truth is possible and urges the equality of every person and their views. Therefore all views can contribute and must be at the table.

Secular liberalism places the value of inclusion over against faithfulness and faith. The claim to speak from the centre must face the challenge of whether the faith that defines the centre is the centre of faith, or the centre of the secular vision of inclusion?

Read it all.

It is true that the Conference passed no Resolutions, offered no Teaching Statements, and took no votes ”“ on anything. But, on the final afternoon, in his Third Presidential Address, Archbishop Rowan Williams (in the words of one of the senior English Bishops) “decisively tipped the balance for the first time in the Conference.”

Another of the Bishops put it this way, “The Bible Studies and the Indaba groups provided the backdrop for the Archbishop to speak on behalf of the whole Conference. And he did so with remarkable clarity and forcefulness.” Unequivocally, he:

*

Affirmed the uniqueness of Christ as “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (not “my way,” or “a way”!);
*

Reaffirmed Resolution 1:10 (from the 1998 Conference)1 as the teaching of the Anglican Communion regarding sexual behavior;
*

Reiterated the Primates’ call in the 2007 Communique from Dar es Salam for moratoria on the blessing of same-sex relationships, the consecration of priests in same-sex relationships, and the crossing of diocesan borders by Bishops of other jurisdictions; 2
*

Endorsed once again the development of an Anglican Covenant as “the way forward”….

Read it all.

Take a look (pdf).

The news of her appointment as the eighth bishop of Christchurch was heralded by a phone call at 4.30 one morning in February and was greeted with “excitement and delight, and a firm prayer to God that `we’re in this together You made this happen so don’t leave me now’.”

[Victoria] Matthews has just returned from the Lambeth Conference, the once-in-a-decade worldwide gathering of the Anglican Church which the Bishop of Nelson, Richard Ellena, described as the “most expensive exercise in futility” he had ever been to.

The 20-day conference was attended by 650 bishops and cost around $15 million to stage but seemed to do little to heal the schism over the appointment of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions.

“I couldn’t disagree more,” Matthews said of Ellena’s comments. “It was a profound gathering. We went in with our differences… but as time went on people began to see they needed to set aside their differences and stay together for the sake of the Church. That’s not an exercise in futility.”

Matthews is part of the Anglican Communion that agreed at the conference not to go ahead with the blessing of same-sex unions but is open to further discussion on it.

“As I understand it the Anglican Church, in this province, recognises two ways of life. One is marriage, which is between a man and a woman. And the other is celibacy. But if you think I’m going to be the sexual police, you’re wrong. I’m not going to be out with my torch peering into people’s bedrooms to see what they’re up to.”

Read it all.

The task force established to implement recommendations of the Windsor Report is unlikely to complete its work in time to have any affect on plans by the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy to hold second and decisive votes to withdraw from The Episcopal Church this fall.

Despite the Windsor Continuation Group’s call for swift implementation of its proposed moratoria, Archbishop Clive Handford, retired primate of The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East and chairman of the Windsor Continuation Group, said he did not anticipate the group’s work having any sort of official status within the Communion until after the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in May 2009””six months after the last of the three dioceses, Fort Worth, has held its annual convention.

The six-member Windsor Continuation Group was established by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in February 2008. He had proposed formation of the group in his Advent letter to the primates last year.

Read it all.

The House of Bishops will meet in special session Sept. 17-19 in Salt Lake City, Utah, with the Lambeth Conference being the primary topic on the agenda.

Normally during a Lambeth Conference year there is no fall meeting of the House of Bishops, said Neva Rae Fox, program officer for public affairs at the Episcopal Church Center. But at their March meeting, the bishops felt it was important to meet to debrief after the conference.

Four sessions devoted to Lambeth are on the preliminary agenda, according to Ms. Fox….

Read it all.

Stephen Crittenden: And …[Archbishop Rowan Williams] seems to have carried that through with the support of Primates. In fact like Phillip Aspinall from Australia, he made it fairly clear he was behind it. So there seems to have been at least a central group who was in favour of pursuing that right through the conference and out the other side.

Bruce Kaye: Absolutely. And the second thing he saw support for was what he called his ‘pastoral forum’, designed to help people who are minorities in particular provinces. And then he said a number of other things, how the instruments of communion work, and international development work and so on.

What I think that means is that what you have is a conference of general conversation in which the President, Archbishop Rowan Williams, identifies back to the conference what really was the consensus general direction of the conference, without any voting on that question.

Stephen Crittenden: Given his reputation, he’s actually being very bureaucratically and strategically clever on this occasion.

Bruce Kaye: Well I was going to say he’s been very papal, actually.

Stephen Crittenden: The draft covenant that the bishops saw at Lambeth seems to have been more punitive and legalistic than the majority of the bishops present were comfortable with.

Bruce Kaye: I think the general consensus according to the documents produced so far, was that they didn’t like the appendix, which is very bureaucratic.

Stephen Crittenden: Is the Anglican church going to end up with a document or indeed some new institution, a pastoral council or a faith and order committee that actually does have real teeth? I mean this gets back to the whole way the Anglican tradition deals with conflict.

Bruce Kaye: Yes, it does. I’m not sure what will happen in that direction, but I’m sure that there’ll be persistent efforts to try and find some way of making decisions about levels of affiliation.

Stephen Crittenden: In other words, if you’re not willing to give up a certain degree of autonomy, you may have to settle for a lower level of participation in the central church?

Bruce Kaye: I think that’s right.

Read it all.

Over the succeeding five years [since 2003], the inability of Anglican bishops to worship round a common altar has not been addressed, and even with a boycott of over 200 bishops the opening eucharist in Canterbury Cathedral saw three primates and a number of bishops refrain from receiving communion due to their theological difficulties with the American church. These positions were not softened during the three weeks at Lambeth, but hardened with some bishops convinced that dialogue in the terms proposed by Dr. Williams was now fruitless.

Up until now, the Anglican Communion has held together “by appealing to diversity,” Bishop [Greg] Venables said.

However, he asked “Can we sacrifice what we believe for unity? I don’t think we can make that decision on the spur of the moment. It is unfair to ask people to sacrifice their convictions for the sake of a unity that is by no means certain.”

The attempts at conversation had not worked. “I hoped we would be able to talk about very serious things, we tried to but were unable to,” he said. The small group process helped “but there wasn’t enough trust. The level of conflict, fear, mistrust, frustration hasn’t allowed it.”

The problem of authority within Anglicanism was not being addressed, he argued. “Anglicanism has always said we were not a vertical church, but now it would help to have a council of cardinals to help us.”

“You have authority in the local church, authority in the diocese, authority in the province, why not have it in the whole church?” he asked. However, there are “no ground rules to define the Anglican Church. No ground rules outside the province. Now we have no way of avoiding the division,” Bishop Venables said.

“We talk but nothing is decided. People are frustrated,” and Lambeth 2008 did not address these needs, Bishop Venables said.

Read it all.

Another factor has a profound influence as we consider Anglican strains around the world – a much greater influence than I had realized previously. The distinct polity (church governance) of the Episcopal Church is included; however, this is a larger and more significant matter than polity alone. As Americans, our country was born in revolution, and our individual rights are matters that hold almost a holy quality for us. Our constitutional Bill of Rights is nearly sacred writ in our self-understanding.

Yet the Anglican world values communion and community life as still higher aspirations and greater goods. Individual self restraint and forbearance for the sake of the common good are entirely consistent with Anglican values and priorities in most of the world. Matters involving individual rights and personal justice do not take as high a priority in many other countries as they do in our own. In many places, focus of attention is directed to the whole, rather than to the parts. Please understand that neither is excluded, but the emphasis is often different.

To express this matter as I heard it put repeatedly at Lambeth – when all the Instruments of Communion agreed on a direction for all churches of the Communion, it astounded our fellow Anglicans that we in the Episcopal Church did not follow that course. I need to add that colleagues in Great Britain and elsewhere considered the actions of General Convention 2003 to be much more confrontational to the entire Communion than I did at the time. Having spent these weeks at Lambeth, I do understand better their perception of apparent American disregard of Communion concerns. In the view of many Anglican colleagues, the Archbishop of Canterbury, along with the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates, all indicated disagreement with consecration of an openly gay man in a partnered relationship and yet the Episcopal Church did precisely that. Therefore, our appeals to Provincial polity have a very individualistic and hollow ring in the ears of many fellow Anglicans.

Read it all.

The conference has ended now with the final plenary in the big tent and the Closing Eucharist in Canterbury Cathedral. The Anglican Communion exists at many levels. Jane Williams said this afternoon in her closing remarks that whatever gets decided or not decided by the bishops, whatever declarations and statements are made, the spouses are clear that communion is about relationships. They will remain together whatever happens.

Archbishop Rowan, in his final address, said something similar. A covenant, he said, can take many forms. Individual bishops can covenant with each other for prayer, mutual support and common mission. He seemed to be suggesting that, whatever the political outcomes of the current disagreements-the Body of Christ is capable of sustaining many layers of relationship.

The Archbishop’s closing address was both clear and, at the same time, highly nuanced. He would like to see official rites for same-sex blessing withdrawn and invading bishops go home. At the same time, he recognizes this may not be possible for everyone for the sake of conscience. While calling for uniformity he also recognizes that the Church needs the questions of its innovators and the voices of its prophets. He seemed to chastise us but, also, to rule us on-side. I’ll try to bring Lambeth home, and we’ll have to consider deeply what it wants us to do. But for now, I want to thank all of you for your prayers.

Read it all.

Lambeth has not resolved the matter of the ordination of gay clergy and consecration of gay bishops.

It is this issue, together with the ordination of female bishops, which has divided the church. While there was no defined schism at Lambeth, the Anglican church us a suppurating sore.

There is no easy way of saying this. The Anglican Church is fast becoming, if not already, dysfunctional. It is a divided house, it cannot stand.

Moreover, there is a significant delusion regarding its future. Over gay clergy, never the twain shall meet.

To this end, the covenant or moratorium over the ordination of gay clergy, achieved at the Lambeth conference, is unlikely to last.

The North American branch of Anglicanism is being held entirely accountable for the demise of the church’s unity over the 2003 ordination of gay bishop Gene Robinson. It has not given a rolled gold assurance it will desist from ordination of gay bishops or bless same sex unions.

In fact, Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, said: “For people who think this is going to lead us to disenfranchise any gay or lesbian person, they are sadly mistaken.”

Read it all.