In his second Presidential Address, the Archbishop stated that he hoped that Lambeth 2008 would ”˜speak from the centre’, which is not ”˜the middle point between two extremes’, but ”˜the heart of our identity as Anglicans’, which ultimately is that ”˜deepest centre which is our awareness of living in, and as, the Body of Christ.’ He went on, riskily and imaginatively, to enter the world of the ”˜innovator’ and the ”˜traditionalist’ concerning sexuality and tried to describe them from the inside and their respective calls for generosity. Surprisingly, and perhaps deliberately, he left little room to develop the depth of the ”˜centre’.

This was left for the Concluding Presidential Address, on the last Sunday. At the end of a conference without ”˜resolutions’, it was magisterially resolute. The Archbishop not only held the Communion together but moved it deeper into Christ and forward in intensification. Intriguingly, he used the phrase ”˜Anglican Church’ several times, and time will be needed to elucidate this hint.

Bishops from The Episcopal Church USA who wanted to press ahead with their ecclesial sexual inclusion project and ignore the Windsor Process and the Anglican Covenant, had been carefully ”˜minded’ by their media advisers not to react in anger. They went away tight lipped. They were angry, but not in public. Their thoughts were expressed by Susan Russell, the President of Integrity USA, when she called this address an ”˜11th-hour sucker punch’.
The Archbishop lucidly expressed the mind of the Lambeth Conference, drawing on the reflections from the indaba groups, and clearly articulated the central way forward, which is the continuation of the Windsor Process and the Covenant. On the two key subjects of sexual ethics and ecclesiology, he reiterated the vital importance of three moratoria: on the authorisation of same-sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and on cross provincial interventions.

These interventions by some conservative Primates from Africa and the Southern Cone of Latin America had been declared by them, from the beginning, to be ”˜temporary’ until something officially was set up. Something official has now been announced and is being urgently set up – the Pastoral Forum, ”˜strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA’. There is no real need for them, on their side, to be angry or tight lipped. In fact, there is encouragement in the Archbishop’s final words concerning inviting ”˜those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages’ and of looking for ”˜the best ways of building bridges’ with GAFCON.

Read it all.

There are examples of exceptions to the Church’s moral teaching made for pastoral reasons. The African adaptation of the teaching on marriage so as to be able to incorporate polygamists and their wives is a good example. This exception also allows African Anglicans to teach the classic doctrine that marriage is for one man, one woman. One could object that allowing polygamists into the church””at whatever level””is de facto an approval of adultery. That in fact was the initial objection, and on the face of it, polygamy (or polyandry, or its contemporary expression in the West, polyamory), is adulterous in nature. However, the overriding concerns of justice for the wives and children, and mercy for the polygamist, allow the exception to be made. From the biblical perspective, some evidence is found to allow polygamy, as the Mormons will tell you, even though the prophets and the church of the New Testament did not accept it. This ambiguity also gives the exception some sort of biblical backing.

On this basis an exception can be made, and it is clear that Anglicans everywhere now accept it. That the Lambeth Conference came into being to advise on the case of Bishop Colenso, deposed for, among other things, advocating this exception, is proof that this process of approval is by no means automatic or rapid.

However, while a province may make such exceptions, there are limits. Polygamists are not allowed to add more wives, for instance. In particular, when one makes a pastoral exception for a certain group of people, ordaining them to the ministry, and especially the episcopate, is unacceptable. It must be pointed out, however, that the first consecrations of bishops of color were justified as pastoral exceptions made for the sake of mission””while sinfully continuing to deny the equality of those first bishops with others, since they were themselves part of an “inferior race.”

The churches that are dealing with the open presence of gay people in their midst are developing strategies to reach out to them. This Conference recognized that this development in these churches is not the fruit of doctrinal drift or abandonment of the faith. They are trying to create ways of incorporating gay people as part of their mission. As the Lambeth Indaba document states (para. 22), the church exists as the instrument of God’s mission””God is doing the sending, and the church is the extension into humanity of that mission. Furthermore, successive Lambeth Conferences have affirmed for thirty years that gay people are worthy to be received into the church, equally beloved with the rest of us by God.

As those churches trying to accomplish this mission in their context wrestle with the appropriate missional approach to and with gay people, they are trying to discern whether a pastoral exception is called for, as with polygamy, or whether in fact homosexuality can be fully accepted as part of living a holy Christian life for those who are so oriented. As Bishop Gene Robinson has pointed out a number of times, there is still significant indecision in the American context itself.

But I think Bishop Wright put the question squarely: can homosexual practice be validated as an acceptable way of life for those whose sexuality orients them toward it? The answer will clearly outline the shape of evangelism and mission to gays and lesbians, as well as pastoral and ascetical practice with gay people.

Read it all.

A letter by Bishop Robert Duncan, moderator of the Common Cause Partnership, to Bishop Gary Lillibridge of the Episcopal Diocese of West Texas has been made public. In that letter, dated August 11, Bishop Duncan put in writing concerns of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and other members of the Common Cause Partnership caused by the suggestions of the Windsor Continuation Group for dealing with divisions in the Anglican Communion. Bishop Duncan had initially shared these concerns with those present at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops.

The August 11 letter was forwarded with permission by Bishop Lillibridge to members of the Windsor Continuation Group and subsequently leaked to liberal activists and published online and via email on August 18.

“I am happy to publicly acknowledge this letter and my description of the concerns we in the Common Cause Partnership have about the proposals of the Windsor Continuation Group. Nonetheless, it is disturbing to discover that at least one member of the Windsor Continuation Group, a body that is supposed to be working for reconciliation in the Anglican Communion, so quickly leaked private correspondence in an attempt to gain some passing political advantage,” said Bishop Duncan.

Read it all.

The Times also writes: “And tensions between the West and Islam underlie the complaint by African bishops that an endorsement of homosexuality by Western churches puts Christians at a disadvantage with Muslims — and at risk of physical violence — in areas where the two faiths compete for adherents.”

A “disadvantage”? Exclusion is a far worse disadvantage for Anglicans. Risk of violence is another thing, however. Still, I am curious if this violence is truly based on homosexuality in the United States. After all, if African bishops and local Muslims are on the same side of the dispute, how can there be disagreement, let alone fighting? Perhaps agreements by some bishops (such as Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola) to support violence against homosexuals and their supporters by joining with local Muslims in oppression should be given more examination in the “culture war.”

The Times’ use of language that styles African bishops and their American supporters as culture warriors victimized by liberal encroachment neither accurately describes the situation in the Anglican Communion nor benefits the healthy exchange of ideas. The so-called culture war is not a response to victimization but an excuse to exclude, deride and criminalize those who are different. Why don’t we start to discuss “traditional notions of faith and family” as describing compassionate action and loving, committed relationships? Those are truly Biblical notions.

Read it all.

The suggestions included the development of a formal covenant agreement by which individual Anglican provinces would promise to act in union with the Anglican Communion as a whole on fundamental matters of faith and morals; the establishment of a “faith and order commission” that would provide guidance on matters of doctrine and morality; and the establishment of a “pastoral council” to address conflicts between provinces.

The outcome of the July 16-August 3 Lambeth Conference “in many respects was positive”, …[Canadian Monsignor Donald] Bolen said.

“A sense of direction emerged which was largely, but not universally agreed, and which should translate into greater cohesion within the Anglican Communion, giving it stronger boundaries and a stronger sense of identity.”

In addition, he said, the Catholic participants at Lambeth were encouraged by the “strong support” shown for the call for moratoriums on blessing same-sex unions, on ordaining openly gay bishops and on violating the structure of the Anglican Communion by naming bishops outside one’s own jurisdiction.

The practice has occurred when conservative Anglican provinces have named bishops for traditionalist Anglicans in the United States, where the US Episcopal Church has shown greater openness to homosexuals and has ordained women priests and bishops.

Because the Anglican Communion has no strong central authority like the Pope, because the Lambeth Conference does not have legislative powers and because the jurisdictional authority of the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury is limited, “at best the conference indicates a direction,” Msgr Bolen said.

“We went into the Lambeth Conference in a wait-and-see mode and we came out of it with some encouragement, but still waiting,” he said.

Read it all.

On Tuesday, Robinson conducted a visitation of Trinity Episcopal Church in Meredith, including officiating a confirmation and reception service for five local people, including four youths.

Robinson recently returned from the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England, an assembly of Anglican bishops that takes place once every 10 years.

“I think it accomplished what it set out to do, which was to build relationships.” he said, listening to such talks as the “Bishop of Havarti tell about what it is like in Zimbabwe. Just the chance to hear what that’s like is just amazing.”

The presence of Robinson, the church’s first openly gay bishop, at the conference was itself the result of struggle and determination. He was not formally invited to this year’s conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church, though he still attended.

Read it all.

I will consider posting comments on this article which are submitted first by email to: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

The Episcopal Church provided the largest block of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, sending 104 of the 469 diocesan bishops present during the conference of Anglican bishops in Canterbury.

Details on who and how many of the Anglican Communion’s 880 active bishops attended the Lambeth Conference have not been made public. However, the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council, reported the conference “involved the participation of some 680 bishops and 3,000 participants.”

There were 617 Anglican bishops registered for the conference, according to Lambeth Conference documentation obtained by The Living Church. Approximately 600 Anglican bishops were present for the group photo. Of the 617, 469 were diocesan bishops and the remaining 140 were suffragan, assisting and assistant bishops, as well as eight bishops without territorial sees.

The largest number of absentees was from Africa, with 209 of the continent’s 324 diocesan bishops missing. There were 115 diocesan and 12 suffragan bishops from African dioceses.

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.

Bishop [Michael] Hough said he returned to Australia a “Rowanite”, convinced by the message and approach to managing the church taken by Archbishop Williams.

“Rowan was pilloried, attacked and mocked – but he got on with being the Archbishop of Canterbury,” Bishop Hough said.

He said the approach taken at the conference to ensure all bishops had a chance to speak was to divide the 800 bishops – about 300 bishops boycotted the conference – into groups of about 40.

This was, Bishop Hough said, an African model of reaching consensus called Indaba.

“The term that Rowan used were `the bonds of affection that bind us’,” Bihsop Hough said.

“If we can’t build on those then what are we doing here?”

“Rowan said God’s watching us, the world’s watching us. If we don’t handle our heritage with integrity then we fail in God’s eyes.

“If we don’t handle conflict then we have failed in the world’s eyes.”

Read it all.

There was a bit of a controversy in London last week. One of the reporters for The Times, who has a reputation for nastiness and undermining the Church of England, surfaced a letter from Archbishop Williams that stated his view that a same-sex relationship “might…reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage.” The headline sensationalized it, speaking in the present tense, although the letter was written eight years ago. Williams has stated that as a theologian he is often “thinking aloud,” but he was not doing so as a bishop.

Of course the reporter was only too happy to call others for comments, particularly the Primate of the Southern Cone, who immediately questioned ++Rowan’s credibility as Archbishop of Canterbury, and disparaged the Lambeth Conference. He is a leader of the GAF-CON group, and is known to have more than just a foot out of the door. It was observed that he and a few other Primates chose not to receive communion from or with the Archbishop.

Within a day of the first article, nineteen Church of England bishops, led by +Tom Wright, a conservative, wrote The Times to criticize the newspaper’s and reporter’s bid to “scupper the conference.” [read the letter and related articles in the links at the end of this letter] They also supported ++Rowan’s right to his own views, even those with which they disagree; saying that he has acted appropriately as Archishop of Canterbury, and praising his leadership of the Lambeth Conference.

I was very pleased to see this letter of support. However, it is very clear that there are some within and others outside the Anglican Communion who are only too happy to undermine it by half-truths, innuendo, disinformation, and in many cases, out-right lies. At this point, it seems clear to me that we are experiencing the break-up of The Anglican Communion as we have known it. A number of Primates did not come to Lambeth, and showed by that act that they believe the rest of us have nothing to say to them. We have said what we could in the public arena but that allows for no nuances and does not have the strength of relationships to build on. The dynamics of this are like a congregational fight. Those who leave are, in affect, saying they want no reconciliation, they do not wish to work on a relationship. The saddest part is that they discard not only those with whom they disagree or are angry, they discard the friends who have stood by them, perhaps in agreement, but certainly in love. The difficulty on a larger scale is that anger can be just as intense as with those we know well, but love and affection are not, for distance and infrequency of meeting inhibit intimacy and trust, and a suspicious word can undermine so much. We have known some of that here.

I will consider posting comments on this article which are submitted first by email:

KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

Actually it is hard to see how there could be an ”˜orderly separation’ between traditionalists and liberals because in many cases the fault-lines do not lie between provinces but within them. In America attempts are to be made in September to depose traditionalist bishops while court battles rage over church property. There is nothing orderly about this.

It is also hard to see how Anglicans can be said to have ”˜reaffirmed their mutual bonds’ when bishops at Gafcon committed themselves to setting up a ”˜province of North America’ as an alternative to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

Rowan Williams is pinning his hope on the Covenant and on a ”˜Pastoral Forum’ made up of members representative of the breadth of the Communion and able to travel and offer, in the words of the Windsor Continuation Group, ”˜pastoral advice and guidelines in conflicted, confused and fragile situations’. There is no guarantee that either the Covenant or the Pastoral Forum will prove acceptable to the Communion. There are questions about whether Parliament would give its approval to the Church of England entering the Covenant if this were seen as narrowing the broad national and popular base of the church.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury told the final Lambeth press conference, winning support for the Covenant among the 44 national and regional churches of the Communion could take up to 2013. That date coincides with the call by some bishops at Lambeth for another gathering in five years’ time. If Williams intends to see the matter through to some kind of resolution, he may be residing in Lambeth Palace for some years to come. Fortunately he is only 58.

In the meantime it remains essential to keep the moratoria on the ordination of gay and lesbian priests and the blessing of same-sex unions in place. It is difficult to see this happening if traditionalist bishops from elsewhere in the Communion continue to take parishes and dioceses in the US under their wing or ordain bishops for North America.

Read it all.

This is part of the bigger problem identified by Dr Wil­liams in his final address. As he put it, the question emerging from Canterbury was not “What is Lambeth ’08 going to say?” but “Where are we going to speak from?” Not only do we not know who is to resolve the Com­munion’s problems ”” if not the Lambeth Conference, then the Primates’ Meeting? ”” we do not know who can define them with any authority. The Windsor Con­tinua­tion Group attracted atten­tion during the Conference because it articulated the problem with candour. The group func­tions as something between a Select Committee and a think tank, however, and the uncer­tainty of its status adheres also to its pro­nouncements. Its remit is merely to submit recommenda­tions to the Anglican Consultative Council next spring, taking into account the bishops’ views as expressed in Canterbury.

Thus the weight given to the group’s resurrection of mora­toriums as the solution to gay consecrations, same-sex blessings, and territorial incursions seems disproportionate. The Episcopal Church in the United States will be uneasy with the request, especially as it is open-ended. When would such a moratorium end? When half the Communion embraces a more tolerant atti­tude? When Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a “gay Church”? Similarly, conser­va­tives behind plans to create an alternative US hierarchy have not been im­pressed by attempts to put extra-provincial interventions on the same footing as same-sex blessings. Nothing suggests that they have changed their view.

All this is to say that the Anglican Communion is in a bigger fix than any conference could sort out. On the other hand, the effort and expense of the Lambeth Conference justify the expectation that it will have done something to draw Angli­cans into a more coherent body. This is why the Reflections are so irritating. Where, indeed, are they speaking from? Whether for logistical reasons, or from a desire to avoid clause-by-clause wrang­ling, they were not available to bishops before they were issued. The result is a rich field for the higher criticism. To take a trivial instance, how many bishops asked for a Lambeth Conference every five years? A handful of enthusiasts, or the majority?

This uncertainty must colour any reading of the remarks about sexuality and suggested revisions of the Anglican Covenant ”” a consequence of holding these discussions at the end of the Con­ference, without time to achieve any corporate ownership of the suggestions. Some of the propo­sals would take the Communion back to the drawing board, and there is no sense of the relative weight that the bishops gave to them. The Covenant remains the only game in town. It is note­worthy that it was not dismissed by the bishops, most of whom have reservations about it; but it would have been good to have more than a disjointed set of suggestions.

Read it all.

Another resource which is worth the time.

One of my many disappointments with certain radio websites is that their material is only available for a short time after it is originally broadcast. Thus, the BBC Northern Ireland Sunday Sequence segments from last Sunday, August 10th, are now no longer available. However, for those of you who can do podcasts you can get the August 10th show via podcast and it really is worth the time. It is quite a long show (almost one hour and 27 minutes total) and includes many sections and interviews, including, for example, a section on blogging and Lambeth which includes comments from Simon Sarmiento. There is also an interview with Bishop Clive Hanford, Chair of the Windsor Continuation Group, and Archbishop Ian Earnest, Primate of the Indian Ocean, and an interview with Irish Archbishop Alan Harper. The final segment is a panel discussion with Lisa Nolland, David Virtue, Bishop Chilton Knudsen, and activist Peter Tatchell.

The link for the podcast (and remember the date of the one you are after is August 10th, the show entitled “Live from Lambeth”) is here.

Even as Archbishop Williams delivered his up-beat, closing address to the Lambeth Conference, the English bishops of Exeter and Winchester called for the Church to recognize the inevitability of the split and to take steps to ensure that the coming separation was done in a peaceful and equitable manner.

Can anything be done to prevent the African and other conservative dioceses from forming a new church? There are only two actions that could prevent the split. If the U.S. and Canadian branches back down from their acceptance of the rights of gays within the church, or if these two branches themselves withdraw from the Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

Just to give you a flavour, we had a story from Alice [Chung Po Chuen] from Madagascar, whose husband has to walk eight hours to church, where there isn’t a public pathway or proper road to do that. He’s away from home for anything up to six weeks at a time; so Alice has to hold together a household and keep the family together. She resigned her job as a leading product-development man­ager in Mauritius after her husband’s consecration, and relo­cated to Madagascar. There is a very painful story, but one that Alice is living and working with great joy and fortitude.

Then there is the story of Mugisa [Isingoma] from the Congo. Congo suffered many, many years of conflict, and still does, and she and her family felt called to come and exercise a ministry in the role of reconciliation, bringing together two ethnic groups.

Her husband was arrested and his life was in danger, and had it not been for the intervention of the then Archbishop of Canterbury and others he would not be alive. When you hear Mugisa tell her story, again you’re touched by the passion and commitment with which she feels called to minister alongside her husband.

It is very humbling, and it has been a good learning experience sharing with our brothers and sisters from across the Communion.

Read it all.

The just-completed Lambeth Conference opened itself to instant ridicule by doing little more than talking and keeping a formal split at bay for the moment. Liberals refused to declare an ultimatum that would force the dissenters to stay or go. Some were angered by what they saw as Lambeth’s toothlessness. Conservatives didn’t quite defect, though many scoffed at Lambeth as a waste of time and $12 million, and proclaimed their readiness to quit.

But to dismiss the conference as a failure of nerve would miss the point that is so vividly illustrated in this crisis: that Christianity itself, in all of its varieties, is a fragile thing indeed. There is every reason to believe that Anglicanism is beset by as many serious moral and theological problems as any church body. The distinctions arise in how denominations meet those challenges.

The Anglican way of openness to opposing views and a decentralized form of government that allows for broad deliberation has much to commend it. Like democracy with which it shares much, Anglican decision making is messy and inefficient, but it comports well with what many leading historians believe to be the method used by the churches of early Christianity. It allows for considerable diversity in belief and practices but sometimes an issue like homosexuality becomes divisive and demands attention.

The archbishop of Canterbury more resembles the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople as the “first among equals” than he does the pope. He can do almost nothing by himself. At every level, from parishes to dioceses to regions to the world conferences, Anglicans argue and vote. The question is whether this is a God-given means of deciding church teaching. In some form or other, it appears that the early church believed it to be.

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.

Still, Hong Kong Primate Paul Kwong said he regretted a lack of “concrete action” to deal with the sexuality issues. He told journalists the Hong Kong Anglican Church had ordained a woman in the 1940s but had later revoked the ordination when it became clear it was not acceptable to other churches.

“Sacrifice is what Hong Kong is asking for,” he said. “We are not talking about rights. For the sake of the communion, we are asking for sacrifice.”

However, Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles said the proposals for a halt to same-sex blessings would be received with “fear and trembling” in his diocese, the Episcopal Café blog site noted. “For people who think that this is going to lead us to disenfranchise any gay or lesbian person, they are sadly mistaken.”

Some individuals expressed doubts that the archbishop’s plan for a covenant, a pastoral forum and a new round of talks with primates would heal the wounds caused by Bishop Gene Robinson’s consecration.

“I think this is not the last Anglican conference but I do think it will be the last Lambeth Conference,” said the Rev. Tom Wetzel of Anglicans United, a group headquartered in Dallas, Texas that says it campaigns for “Anglican orthodoxy”.

Read it all.

One of the key benefits of this Lambeth conference was the opportunity it afforded Anglican leaders from throughout the world, including our own Primate, Archbishop Greg, to meet together in groups, as well as one-on-one, to discuss important matters. There have been many reports of positive “indaba” and Bible study group meetings.

There have also been reports of frustration. Frustration that Lambeth, by design, did not produce any further clarity on the crisis ”“ no clear direction, no decisions. However, this was indeed by design and was cited by bishops who chose not to attend as one of the factors in their decision. Two Primates ”“ one attending Lambeth, one not ”“ spoke passionately and eloquently of the intransigent anti-Christian actions of the North American churches, actions that precipitated the crisis. I have great respect for both Archbishop Deng Bul (Sudan) and Archbishop Orombi (Uganda) for their courage in taking their stands when silence would have been far easier.

I was struck by the marked contrast between what I was hearing from Lambeth and what I experienced at the GAFCon meeting only a few weeks earlier in Jerusalem. The ambiguity and confusion created by Lambeth is in stark contrast to the clarity and joy of GAFCon. While Lambeth focused on holding together institutional unity in the absence of spiritual unity, GAFCon manifested the genuine unity of those who share the same Lord, the same Truth and the same Spirit. Those of us privileged to be in Jerusalem in June experienced daily symphonies of praise as brothers and sisters in Christ worshipped together in “one accord”.

Sadly, Lambeth again clearly demonstrated that there are those who call themselves Anglicans who have strayed far from Christian truth and have embraced another lord and a different gospel. The Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, is struggling to do the impossible ”“ hold together under the Anglican banner two utterly incompatible religions. Thus, the incoherence, the confusion, and the contradictions contained in the Lambeth documents. Compare the 42 page Lambeth “Reflections” document which says everything, but in the end says nothing, to the four page GAFCon statement, which offered a clear statement of faith and outlined next steps.

Read it all.

“We’re going to do an assessment of what happened at Lambeth and [the Global Anglican Fellowship Conference] to see what might be possible,” Bishop [Peter] Beckwith said when reached by a reporter for The Living Church. “This is not a decision-making meeting, although I would not oppose a decision if a consensus is reached.”

Read it all.

The upshot of Lambeth is that the Americans are going to continue ordaining homosexuals and celebrating same-sex blessings and the conservative foreign Anglican prelates will continue trespassing into American Episcopal dioceses on behalf of beleagured conservatives. Nothing really changed.

And I didn’t think I could persuade my bosses here to dump tons of money into sending me overseas for three weeks just to find that out.

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.

Jane Little talks to the BBC Robert Piggott about the deficit left as a result of Lambeth 2008 (starts about one minute in and goes a little over three minutes).

Catholics who keep up with Anglicanism may have observed that the whole thing seems to be visibly coming apart.

On the one hand, at June’s rally of the world’s conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem — the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) — over a thousand conservative leaders declared their willingness to work outside the official structure and indeed to intervene in the errant Western Anglican churches in defense of their marginalized and oppressed conservatives.

On the other, over 200 conservative bishops, mostly from Africa, simply refused to attend late July’s Lambeth Conference, the decennial meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops, because the bishops of the Episcopal Church — who, by ordaining an openly fornicating homosexual bishop, had thumbed their noses at the rest of the world’s Anglicans, and the Christian moral tradition to boot — were seated with full voice and vote.

Of particular interest will be the fate of the small Anglo-Catholic party, the wing closest to Catholicism in doctrine and devotion, now found almost entirely in England and the English-speaking former colonies. It was once, in the 1920s and early 1930s, the most creative and effective party in Anglicanism, but has kept declining since.

Read it all.

Watch it all (approximately 9 minutes).

Earlier we noted a blog entry from the Bishop of Lichfield about Lambeth 2008 in which he said:

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.

.

This led one of our blog readers to write the bishop to correct this misinformation. As A. S. Haley has shown comprehensively, the facts are entirely the opposite of this assertion cited by the Bishop of Lichfield.

We now know from conversations with bishops at Lambeth that this was not something isolated to the Bishop of Lichfield, but that other bishops at Lambeth were given this misinformation as well. This raises disturbing questions, namely, who were the TEC bishops giving out this misinformation? And perhaps more important: can we look for reappraising blogs and leaders who claim to care about justice to denounce the injustice of spreading untruths like this at a once a decade bishops meeting? Who were the bishops providing this misinformation and why were they doing so? Can we look for them to come clean and apologize?

And perhaps most importantly, can we look for a denunciation from the national leadership of this unchristian practice at a Christian meeting? TEC often prides itself on its “prophetic” witness, but a close reading of the prophets shows that almost nothing concerns them more than dishonesty and lack of truth–KSH.

Mohler: Where do you see this leaving the Episcopal Church, U.S.?

Conger: I see it in the law courts over the next 10 years, frankly, as Evangelical parishes or Anglo-Catholic parishes who are the traditionally-minded members of the Episcopal Church either pull out and join new denominations, or take shelter and refuge under the leadership of bishops from overseas churches.

This is going to spark litigations over property, and who gets to call themselves an Episcopalian, who’s an Anglican. It’s a mess, and there is no short-term solution that I see to fix this problem save for one side giving up and going away.

Mohler: Now you are affiliated with and a priest of the Diocese of Central Florida, that’s known as more of the conservative of the regions of the Episcopal Church. I would compare that to San Francisco, or Washington, or Los Angeles. In what sense are you really part of one church at this point?

Conger: We’re not part of one church in the sense that I could not function”¦ A priest from, say, San Francisco who was a gay man or had been divorced and remarried, for example, could not come to where I am near Orlando and function as an Episcopal Priest. I could not get a job or license because of my theological views in many parts of the Episcopal Church. There is no interchangeability of clergy. It’s become Balkanized along doctrinal and theological views.

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.

Bishop [Sue] Moxley liked blogging so much she’s considering keeping one up full-time. “It was a good experience,” she said. “It meant that I had that time to reflect on what went on in that day.” During the busy conference schedule this meant blogging late at night, after others had gone to bed and before morning prayer at 6:30 a.m.

But what to blog about? Most bishops were writing to keep in touch with their dioceses and the details of the jam-packed conference were enough to keep them busy, including stories from the Eucharists, encounters with Archbishop Williams, and the best place to get a latte in Canterbury.

Some topics were more sensitive to blog about, however: not only the current tensions over homosexuality within the Anglican Communion, but personal details that bishops shared in discussion, including stories of persecution in their home countries.

“There was an agreement in my Bible study and indaba [mid-sized discussion] group that people would not share stories that people said could not be shared,” said Bishop Moxley. She also said she trod carefully around more volatile topics: “My strategy was to have [my blog audience] get a sense of what the day was like and the kind of topics we were dealing with, rather than give my own viewpoint on what should and should not have been said.”

Read it all.