Bishop Lawrence criticized the existing Instruments of Communion of being too slow to adapt. “I witnessed a new birth last month [at GAFCON],” Bishop Lawrence said. “The Global South has come to its place of maturity. I don’t know how the two structures will work together in the future. Those who adapt the quickest will be the ones who win the day.”

Bishop Zavala challenged Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to state clearly to the rest of the Communion the intentions of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops.

“I don’t want to put words in her mouth,” he said. Bishop Zavala said the current crisis is rooted in The Episcopal Church’s decision to disregard Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference and consecrate a partnered homosexual person as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

“If there is no moratorium then the Communion will split,’ he said.

Read it all.

(ENS)

Many bishops came to this gathering in fear and trembling, expecting either a distasteful encounter between those of vastly different opinions, or the cold shoulder from those who disagree. The overwhelming reality has been just the opposite. We have prayed, cried, learned, and laughed together, and discovered something deeper about the body of Christ. We know more of the deeply faithful ministry of those in vastly differing contexts, and we have heard repeatedly of the life and death matters confronting vast swaths of the Communion: hunger, disease, lack of education and employment, climate change, war and violence. We have remembered that together we may be the largest network on the planet ”“ able to respond to those life and death issues if we tend to the links, connections, and bonds between us. We have not resolved the differences among us, but have seen the deep need to maintain relationships, even in the face of significant disagreement and discomfort. The Anglican Communion is suffering the birth pangs of something new, which none of us can yet fully appreciate or understand, yet we know that the Spirit continues to work in our midst. At the same time patience is being urged from many quarters, that all may more fully know the leading of the Spirit. God is faithful. May we be faithful as well.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate

The Episcopal Church

Read it carefully and read it all.

And this is emphatically not about forcing others to conform ; it is an agreement to identify those elements in each other’s lives that build trust and allow us to see each other as standing in the same Way and the same Truth, moving together in one direction and so able to enrich and support each other as fully as we can. What I am saying, in effect, is that every association of Christian individuals and groups makes some sort of ”˜covenant’ for the sake of mutual recognition, mutual gratitude and mutual learning.

Does this mean that we are all restricted by each other’s views and preferences, incapable of arguing or changing? It was a problem familiar to St Paul, and you have already, in this Conference, heard something of how he dealt with it. But let me try to say how this affects our current difficulties. A fellow-Christian may believe they have a profound fresh insight. They seek to persuade others about it. A healthy church gives space for such exchanges. But the Christian with the new insight can’t claim straight away that this is now what the Church of God believes or intends; and it quite rightly takes a long time before any novelty can begin to find a way into the public liturgy, even if it has been widely agreed. Confusion arises when what is claimed as a new discernment presents itself as carrying the Church’s authority.

And that’s why the pleas for continuing moratoria regarding certain new policies and practices have been uttered. Such pleas have found wide support across the range of views represented in the indaba groups. The Church in its wider life can’t be committed definitively by the judgment of some; but when a new thing is enshrined, in whatever way, in public order and ministry, it will look like a definitive commitment. The theological ground for a plea for moratoria is the need to avoid this confusion so that discernment continues together. The Resolution of Lambeth ’98 was an attempt to say both ”˜We need understanding and shared discernment on a hugely complex topic,’ and ”˜We as the bishops in council together are not persuaded that the new thoughts offered to us can be reconciled with our shared loyalty to Scripture.’ Perhaps we should read that Resolution – forgetting for a moment the bitterness and confusion around the debate and acknowledging that it remains where our Communion as a global community stands – as an attempt to define what a healthy Church might need – space for study and free discussion without pressure, pastoral patience and respect, unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from Scripture and tradition. And this is not by any means to say that a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf : 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. To say that the would-be innovator must be heard gratefully and respectfully is simply to acknowledge the debt we always owe to those who ask unfamiliar questions, because they prompt us to explore our tradition more deeply.

It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework. Such interventions often imply that nothing within a province, no provision made or pastoral care offered, can be recognizably and adequately Christian; and this is a claim not lightly to be made by any Christian community regarding any other without grave breach of charity. And it seems to be widely agreed in this Conference that internal pastoral and liturgical care, strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA and the proposed Pastoral Forum we have been discussing, are the way we should go if we want to avoid further ecclesial confusion.

So I hope that, if part of the message of Lambeth ’08 is that we need to develop covenantal commitments, and that one aspect of this may be what you could call covenanted restraint, this will be seen in the context of a unity not enforced but given in Christ.

Read it all.

Anglican clergy from across the world gathered Sunday for the final day of the Lambeth Conference, held once in a decade, amid a bitter row about the topic of gays in the church.

The Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, southeastern England, is a key event for the worldwide Anglican Communion, which has around 77 million followers led by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

About 650 bishops and archbishops attended the 20-day event for intensive sessions of worship, study and conversation at the University of Kent campus.

Read it all.

One major aspect of the Lambeth Conference that seems to hardly get mentioned at all is the 540+ spouses who gather daily for their own conference.

Like the bishops, the spouses meet daily for worship, meals, plenary sessions, bible studies, and self-select sessions.

The team that put together the Spouses’ Conference, under the direction of Jane Williams, had a very difficult task. They had to build a conference for a group of people who appear to have very little in common other than having spouses with similar jobs. They are, among other things, mothers, wives, fathers, husbands, clergy, professionals, professors, seamstresses, and full time bishops’ wives.

While the bishops were discussing issues in the church, and learning about episcopal ministry and each other. There spouses were learning about world issues, each other, taking trips to different parts of England, making art, praying, and for many of them, being introduced to many of the issues facing the church. They had the opportunity to discuss struggles in being a bishop’s spouse. A few commented that it was good being able to see the work that was being done around the communion in person.

Read it all.

Please read widely from a variety of points of view and if something is asserted, check the documentation if you can to make sure it is accurate. Seek not to jump to conclusions.

And get ready for this: if the Conference goes as I have been concerned it might (and I defer judgment in any final sense until the end), one of the responses is going to be: see, people like that (ie people who are concerned) just do not understand, they are against–and then you fill in the blank–meeting face to face, group process, face to face encounter, the importance of understanding different contexts, the Archbishop of Canterbury personally, etc. It does not follow that if Lambeth 2008 failed to do the most important thing that nothing good in the process occurred, but it is the larger overall outcome that matters. The Windsor Report used the metaphor or image of sickness to describe the state of the Communion (when it was written, now it is worse). The central question remains did the conference contribute the helping the serious sickness of the Anglican Communion overall heal or did it do the opposite? KSH.

We were each invited to share something about context within which we address the issue of homosexuality. Our Indaba group did a good job of listening as each bishop responded. Still, I must note my deep disappointment that we are talking about gay and lesbian people rather than listening to them. I believe that Bishop Robinson’s exclusion from this Conference profoundly diminished this process.

We addressed challenging questions about the three moratoria. In the course of our discussion, our Bible study group agreed that it is not enough for the bishops and provinces to agree to observe moratoria. Just stopping certain activities is not enough. There is no life in that. We need to know “Why?” and “For how long?” The moratoria should be in the service of a larger project of coming to a shared understanding of the Scripture, of an exploration of theological anthropology and an articulation of sexual ethics. Only by clearing space for those wider discussions will the moratoria speak life rather than threaten death (to echo the Archbishop of Canterbury) to the Communion. We hope that the Conference final statement will spell this out.

We also did a line-by-line reading of the St. Andrew’s Draft of the proposed Covenant. There is broad support for the Covenant, but lots of concern and outright opposition to the Appendix.

Read it all–and I agree about the why and the how long. The Windsor report, by the way, answered the second question and pointed well on the way to the first.

Hat tip: Ruth Gledhill who notes that this video was made for Times Online by Joanna Clegg.

I am also aware that there is a deliberate desire at this decade’s conference to avoid a focus upon parliamentary debate and resolutions, and instead focus upon common discussion, listening, and prayer. This is as it should be: for what council of bishops could ever speak faithfully unless its words emerged from a mind submitted to and brought together in the Spirit of Christ Jesus? And how shall this happen but through the gathering in prayer in the example of the first Apostles?

But if this prayerful reflection does not, in this time, give rise to a common resolution regarding the responsibilities of your own pastoral office and the ordering of our common life, such devoted intentions will have been wasted, perhaps culpably so.

—The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, before Lambeth 2008 started

Nevertheless, the process is catching “the direction of travel” as the conservative Bishop of Winchester described it…and I don’t think he was being kind. Despite the bishop’s worry this document is not an enthused advocate for gay and lesbian progress. Lambeth 1-10 from 1998 remains on the books (homosexuality is at odds with Holy Scripture) and it looks like we might be extending the moratoria as a “season of gracious restraint.” That cessation refers to the blessing of same sex unions, ordinations to the episcopate, and incursions by other bishops across diocesan boundaries.

There was a workshop called “The Devil is in the Details” which I missed. There is much rightful buzz about making sure about what is the difference between “authorized liturgies for same sex unions” and “suggestions” from the bishop’s office. Further, since there is already a moratorium observed in the American Church when, they hasten to ask, will these roaming bishops cease and desist?

A hot button for the Africans has been equating the practice of polygamy and the current challenge to accommodate homosexuality in holy orders. “We have never allowed persons in such a state to enter positions of leadership,” they say. The Archbishop of York (an African) said his grandfather set his wives apart with property when he became a Christian and said Americans were “chasing butterflies” with that argument. Perhaps it was a lull from the seagulls but even I understood that the comparison was not of substance but of process. Christianity has always acquired new ways of adapting to the time. Males aren’t required to be circumcised before becoming Christians anymore. Apparently there was an accomodation for polygamy, so would the Church do that for homosexuality?

Read it all. One’s mind boggles to read reflections like this. Already a moratorium observed in the American church? Hello? There were two moratoria called for and they are NOT being observed in the Episcopal Church as Gene Robinson had the honesty and forthrightness to say AFTER the House of Bishops New Orleans meeting in September 2007 (and which the report wrongly evaluated). [As the Bishop of California amply makes clear in a post below on the blog today, one moratorium is not being observed today in the diocese of California and will not be after Lambeth 2008]. There was NOT accomodation for polygamy but temporary accomodation for polygamists spouses out of genuine compassionate concern, and this was with church members never church leaders. And, no, circumcision is not the same. One wishes Bishop Packard could have a long conversation with, say, the Archbishop of Jos about such things–KSH.

In a final draft of the communiqué, debated by bishops in a closed ”˜hearing’ last night, the bishops say there is ”˜widespread support’ for three moratoria:

’This could be the “generous act of love” the communion is looking for. The moratoria could be taken as part of a sign of the bishops’ affection, trust and goodwill towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and one another. The moratoria will be difficult to enforce, so there are some fears as to whether it will hold. But there is a desire to make it do so.

”˜There are questions to be explored in relation to how long the moratoria are intended to serve. Perhaps the moratoria could be seen as a “season of gracious restraint.”’

There was also strong support for a new global Pastoral Forum – a rapid deployment hit squad which could be sent to intervene where actions by provinces threaten to cause disruption to the life of the Communion. The Pastoral Forum would also act as a ”˜friendly uncle’ providing shelter for those parishes which have pulled away from their dioceses and provinces until such time as they can be ”˜returned to their parents’.

”˜There is an agreement that it should be pastoral and not legal and should be able to respond quickly. It was also clearly stated that this process should always be moving towards reconciliation with the parent Province.’

But the bishops stressed: ”˜It would need to be clear that the forum could operate in a Province only with its consent and in particular with the consent of the Primate of the Province. There was some support for an alternative suggestion to appoint in any dispute a Pastoral Visitor, working with a professional arbitrator and to create in the Communion a “pool” of such visitors.’

The Reflections Drafting Group will prepare a final version of the statement today, taking into account last night’s hearing. It will be presented to the bishops this afternoon when they are expected to affirm it.

But whether this will make any difference is yet to be seen.

Read it all. I have to admit I found the description of the pastoral forum–“a rapid deployment hit squad”–amusing since it hardly sounded Anglican and since nothing the Anglican Communion hierarchy has done like this recently has remotely approached being able to be described by such a title!

But more important to me was the title Lichfield gave to the press release and the verb they chose in the first paragraph. “Bishops agree way forward for Anglican Communion,” they tell us. “After two-and-a-half weeks of prayer, Bible study, reflection, and what was predicted to be ”˜frank expression and robust debate’, the bishops will this afternoon agree a ”˜Reflections Document’ setting out their vision of the future of the Anglican Communion.” Interesting word choice, that. Agree means “to give consent; assent” or “to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement.” But how exactly will this happen at Lambeth 2008? And given the length and the meandering motley nature of the final statement, what would their agreeing to it actually mean?

Sorry, but these words are a projection of wish fulfillment but not the reality of what is taking place on the ground. All of which comes back to my anxiety about this Lambeth from the outset–the nature of the process and what it was designed to achieve. The only thing which was clear was what the bishops were not doing–parliamentary procedure, resolutions, voting, amendments, etc. Ok, fine. But if that is what the process isn’t, then what is the alternative? None of the participants seems clear on the answer, and no, that is not a good thing in any conference, especially one where the leaders gathered face on of the greatest crises in their history–KSH.

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.

Amid the confusion caused by their divisions over what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, Anglican bishops meeting for the Lambeth Conference have come to realise one thing – that the Anglican Communion cannot continue as it is.

Information from the bishops’ discussion of the subject shows an awareness of the enormous gulf in how each side views the very nature of Anglicanism.

For Anglicans, as the bishops’ reflections document explains, “in some parts [much of Africa, for a start] homosexual and lesbian relations are a taboo; in others [the United States, for example] it has become a justice issue”.

There’s a growing acceptance that divisions are likely to intensify, and that the Episcopal Church in the United States is likely to ordain another gay bishop before very long.

Meanwhile the conservative alliance set up in Jerusalem last month – the traditionalist church-within-the-church that thumbed its nose at the Lambeth Conference and at the Archbishop of Canterbury – will continue to recruit and organise inside the Episcopal Church’s territory.

The official group set up to find a way out of the crisis acknowledged it faced “a long and arduous road” in rescuing the Communion.

In fact, if things simply stay as they are there might not even be another Lambeth Conference.

Read it all.

The idea of a covenant itself was mainly accepted by Episcopal Church bishops, said Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana. “I did not find any American bishop who was unable to accept the idea of covenant,” he said. “I think that there is a strand amongst us that ”¦ is not necessarily going to be happy about it.”

Jenkins added that “part of the sacrifice most American bishops are willing to make is that we will accept a covenant and accept the moratoria.” Aspinall said that one American bishop told him that he came into the conference opposed to a covenant, but his support is growing day by day.

However, Bishop Marc Andrus of Diocese of California — where the Supreme Court recently ruled that marriage is open to gays — said that a moratorium “is a non-starter for me.” He also noted that in relation to the other part of the moratoria — ending incursions into other churches — “the main perpetuators of the incursions are not present so [it’s difficult] for me to make an agreement on moratoria on that basis.

“The [main] reason I am committed to continuing blessings is because it’s a justice issue,” he said. “While we defer and wait, there are many gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexual people all over the world who continue to be denied their civil and human rights.”

Although Jenkins said he believed “it is possible to make a sacrifice without selling out,” he said that it is “a moral dilemma for me” if gay and lesbian Anglicans have a sacrifice imposed on them. He added that the covenant proposals represent “a commitment to minimize the impact of something I do upon another person.”

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).

On Sunday, they leave Canterbury, England, and return to their dioceses, hoping their talks at the Lambeth Conference have held off a permanent split over the Bible and homosexuality.

“We seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life,” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told the 650 bishops at the event. “We need to speak life to each other and that means change.”

Long-simmering differences over what Anglicans should believe erupted in 2003, when the Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Anglican theological conservatives recently formed their own worldwide network within the communion that challenges Williams’ authority but stops short of schism.

No one expected the conference to definitively resolve the conflict.

More than 200 traditionalist bishops boycotted Lambeth. Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, planned the event with no resolutions or votes, focusing instead on rebuilding frayed relationships. In place of an official end-of-meeting statement, the bishops Sunday will release their “reflections” on the event.

Still, the gathering was closely watched by other religious groups.

Read it all.

Our bishops have one more opportunity to make their voices heard in their Indaba groups tomorrow before this “draft” comes final and I know for a fact certain that many of them have been doing precisely that against extraordinary odds and at significant cost.

Pray for the bishops. Pray for the church. And pray that we refuse to settle for “well, it could have been worse” … and that we continue to challenge this church and communion of ours to live up to its high calling to BE the Body of Christ in the World.

A lot of pain and anger and hurt there, makes the heart sad–read it all.

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.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We are ending in a moment of frenzied attempts to make sense of all of it. Let me sort out what I can.

We were in Bible Study groups that averaged 8 Bishops per group. Five Bible Study groups were then combined to make an Indaba group of approximately 40. And there were 16 Indaba groups.

16 x 8 x 5 = 640 Bishops participating. (By tomorrow) the Indaba groups will have met 13 times, for a little more than an hour and a half each time. Total = approximately 20 hours of discussion on a total of nine (somewhat related) topics.

Each Indaba group had a facilitator, a recorder, and a “listener.” (Each group nominated 3 Bishops to be listeners, and the Conference Design Committee selected from among the nominees to assure “balance” among the group of listeners.)

It was the job of the facilitator, the recorder, and the listener to record the comments that were made in all of these groups by all of these Bishops. As I said a few days ago, if a given comment came up five or six times in as many different groups, it was almost certain to make it into the final “Reflections” Statement that has been under construction throughout the Conference.

Tonight at 5 PM we had the final “Hearing” on the Fourth Draft of what we have seen three times before – now 23 pages in length; we had not quite an hour to offer our suggestions before it is finalized overnight. At 5:52 PM we were given “Part 2” – an additional 14 pages, not seen previously, that attempted to summarize the conversations of the last three days on the topics of human sexuality and the Anglican Covenant. We had another 38 minutes to offer comments on it (!).

What will be issued tomorrow, as a Statement of the Lambeth Conference 2008 will thus be the Herculean effort of a team that is attempting to capture (as in a “snapshot,” I suggested earlier) “where we are” as seen through the eyes of the Bishops who have been together these past three weeks.

Of necessity that Statement will be “all over the board.”

In all honesty, they have already done a better job than I would have thought possible. But, will it be of help to the Communion?

At one level, I think the goals of the Conference have, indeed, been fulfilled. We have spent much time in prayer and Bible Study (many have remarked that the Gospel of John has become a new book for them). Relationships have been built and strengthened. And there is probably more appreciation on everyone’s part for the breadth – and diversity – of convictions across the spectrum.

As the London Times reported this morning, we have avoided schism (though GAFCON is undeniable evidence that we are already living with it!); but at least we have at least avoided it here. There have been no angry speeches or staged walk-outs. Even the very strong indictment offered by the Archbishop of the Sudan was offered without anger.

But any who hoped we would finally speak with one voice, or even make significant progress toward resolving our differences in the area of sexuality, has to be deeply disappointed. I am afraid those hopes were unrealistic from the beginning.

I am reminded what theologian Martin Marty said to us when the Episcopal Bishops met with our Lutheran counterparts in the early 1990s. He commented that there have only been two issues that have so divided Christians in the history of the Church as have the issues of homosexuality: Christology, during the early centuries, and Justification at the time of the Reformation. “And,” he said, “in both cases it took about 300 years to sort the matter out. So, don’t expect any early or easy resolution.”

Thank you for sending me to this year’s Lambeth Conference. I hope I have done well in representing the Diocese of Central Florida, on the one hand, and in reporting back to you as clearly and helpfully as I can, on the other. And, one more time, thank you for your prayers.

With warmest regards to all of you in our Lord,

–(The Right Rev.) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida

The bishops “present from the CAPA family” spoke of their deep commitment to the Communion. But they also spoke of the absence of some of their colleagues “as a loud cry of deep anguish they feel about the deteriorating condition of the wounded Anglican Communion, a Communion they love very much”, reflecting “the frustration about the wasted opportunities that would have otherwise set the Communion on the path of healing”. Even those CAPA bishops who are here, they said, “share their concerns and feelings”.

The African bishops express their belief that “the best way forward to sustain our Anglican heritage” would involve reaffirming Lambeth 1998’s resolution 1.10 and implementing it in its entirety.

The bishops call for the adoption of the three moratoria and the swift formation of the Pastoral Forum as recommended by the Windsor Continuation Group “by the Archbishop of Canterbury in consultation with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA”.

The CAPA bishops state that they agree in principle “to a covenant which enhances the values and spirit of Anglicanism as defined in the context of scripture, reason and tradition”, and call for “the review and strengthening of instruments of unity of the Anglican Communion [sic], in light of the current challenges and realities.

The bishops conclude by expressing their hope that this Lambeth Conference will bear fruit in such a way as to “help us be a communion that can reveal to the world the truth of the Word of God”.

Read it all.

A senior archbishop has criticised Lambeth Conference delegates for simply talking about the gay issue threatening to tear the Anglican community apart.

Leader of the Anglican Church in Hong Kong, Archbishop Paul Kwong said he was disappointed with mere discussions.

He claimed bishops at the Canterbury event spent more time defending their views about homosexuality.

The talks needed to produce some solutions to help heal the rift in the Church, the archbishop said.

Read it all.

“It’s the benefit of Anglicanism to me. We’ve got everything from the arch-conservative to the arch-liberal,” said the Rev. Lou Scales, of The Church of Our Savior, on Columbia Road in Martinez.

A few years ago, The Church of Our Savior held an event titled “A Discussion With Gay and Lesbian Episcopalians,” and has hired a senior warden who is gay.

“That kind of preference is incidental to us,” the Rev. Scales said.

It isn’t as incidental for others, said the Rev. Richard Sanders, the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, on Reynolds Street. “There are people who have left St. Paul’s on this issue — both because we’re not liberal enough and not conservative enough.”

The issue, he said, is clearly divisive.

“It has affected us here at St. Paul’s, locally, regionally, nationally and internationally,” the Rev. Sanders said. “It’s a terribly devastating thing for me. I grew up in this church. This crisis, and this issue, has been very hurtful.”

The Rev. Fain agreed.

“Living with the ambiguity and the tensions has been very challenging,” he said. “Some of us have the concern that this is drawing us away from our main mission.”

The Rev. Sanders said that although the issue is important to him and to the people of St. Paul’s, “it’s not our priority here.”

“We’re focused on showing the love of Christ to the world,” he said.

Perhaps, the Rev. Scales said, that’s best done “by still gathering at the table, both in spite of and because of our differences.”

Read it all.

Many in the Episcopal Church have been living in anticipation of Lambeth 2008 since the summer of 2003. What do you think the effects of this Conference will be on the Communion level?

Before I came here I wrote a letter to the clergy and to the diocese saying I do not think that GAFCON or Lambeth would be a “Continental Divide” for the Communion. Think, for instance, of the rivers that flow through the mountains of North Carolina. Some flow into the Mississippi River and to the Gulf of Mexico and Some flow into the Savannah River and then into the Atlantic.

What we are involved in is like a drive across Nevada on US highway 50. It is called the “Loneliest Road in America”. You cross more mountain passes on that road than if you went across the entire United States from Oregon to Connecticut. None of the divides are continental and none of the waters that flow from there ever make it to the ocean.

So it is the wrong expectation. I did not expect Lambeth to deliver the answers. It would have been nice but I did not expect it.

I am not quite so sure about GAFCON. I am tempted to say that Lambeth has shed a lot of light on GAFCON and GAFCON has shed a lot of light on Lambeth.

Read it all.

More seriously, this second Presidential Address showed a worrying misreading of the ground realities of the Communion. Together with many who come from churches outside the Anglo-American axis, I cannot identify myself with either side the Archbishop portrayed. It put me at a loss. What is the “generous initiative” am I supposed to take in the Communion? More poignantly, am I expected to take any generous initiative at all? Even more pointedly, has the Archbishop ”“ with his best intents ”“ completely ignored the realities outside the familiar Anglo-American perceptions? And so, the many generous acts of love from churches in the southern continents have been dismissed by the sense of “superiority and dependence” in the West, as Gregory Cameron has pointed out. This is to say, British academics and US financiers have the rest of the world all figured out and neatly configured from the vantage points of sanitised settings in the West.

For Canterbury does speak (unconsciously) from a centre: the centre of a domineering Western framework that has proved ineffective and burdensome to the rest of the Communion. The present crisis is not merely a clash of two opposing theological positions: liberal and conservative. The emerging voices from the South are stifled, misunderstood, and misrepresented by all sides in the West in the current debates. What has been expected of the rest of the world is often merely in conforming to set roles in screenplays that are scripted by (well-meaning!) westerners. What American and British Anglicans have often failed to appreciate is this: despite human folly and weakness, and often quite aside from institutional efforts, the Word of God has given birth to new spiritual movements in the wider world. God has kept for himself a people in the southern continents, that they may be able to save the Anglican Communion in the present dark hour (alluding to Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s exposition on Joseph in his plenary address to Lambeth).

Read it all.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made an eloquent case in his opening presidential address to the Lambeth Conference for embracing a new way of addressing the difficult issues that divide Anglicans, so it is disheartening to see with just two days left that this new procedure appears to be moving toward adopting more of the same failed policies from the past.

In Part Three of its preliminary observations, the Windsor Continuation Group recommended moratoria on same-sex blessings, the consecration of more partnered homosexual bishops and the cessation of cross-border interventions. It also proposed “the swift formation” of a “pastoral forum” to “engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion.”

It is difficult to imagine either those seeking to normalize homosexuality within the church or those seeking to minister to congregations and dioceses that feel marginalized by such innovations taking the pastoral forum any more seriously than they did the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference or the primates’ pastoral scheme. In addition, the Windsor Continuation Group recommends deferring a decision to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), which does not meet until next May. Undoubtedly a round of provincial consultations will follow.

Read it all

Watch it all.

Do Lambeth participants not see that there is a total contradiction between the WCG (Windsor Continuation group)’s and Rowan Williams’ sense of the size of the problem and the consequences if it is unaddressed on the one hand and the formation, status, and decisions of the Episcopal Forum being proposed on the other?

If Anglicans need to act “speedily” and if the present (quite serious) situation will get worse over time unless there are these multiple moratoria, then something needs to happen AT Lambeth 2008 itself to improve things. Not to decide is itself a decision.

We have one or two crucial sessions left and then we leave here with a landscape entirely redefined most likely without anything [really meaningful and clear] having been said.

–From a bishop participating in Lambeth not long ago

Section H: Human Sexuality

90. This section should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because it was quickly apparent the whole spectrum of human sexuality, including issues of marriage and family, was not going to be discussed. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included sessions on Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People.

91. The third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating. (ACC-3 p.55)” Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly.

92. Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, but to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity. The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism22. It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard. We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences. As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt.

93. There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In this regard, in some groups, in addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church23, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire had caused in many parts of the Communion.

94. There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it was clear that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality from the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution.

95. There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions:
-How the church evangelizes, disciples and provides pastoral care for homosexual people;
-How and on what basis the church admits people to Sacred Orders;How the church deals with the first two locally and globally.

96. The whole issue of homosexual relations is highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue.

97. Some people said that their understanding of the long tradition of Christian moral teaching is now being questioned and this creates confusion when a clear presentation of how people have come to their new understanding of scripture and theology is not available to them. For some, such new teaching cannot be acceptable as they consider all homosexual activity as irredeemably sinful.

98. In the framework of The Bishop in Mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a partnered homosexual Bishop has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission.

99. For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The perception has been that the Communion did not tell those Provinces that they must withdraw from the Communion. The Communion made a space for them to deal with this issue at their local level. This they are doing, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is, why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard ”“ it is understood to be a sin, but local pastoral provision is made: polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion.

100. There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that has brought us to this point in time. To some, the possible acceptance of homosexual people as good Christian people is new, and their acceptance as possible leaders in the church is unacceptable. To others, thirty years of Scripture study, of theological discussion, of listening and discussion to come to the present understanding, seems a long time. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, it has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide ”“ either to agree, or to live together in disagreement.

101. The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be.

102. For many Anglicans, the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, is seen as questioning the authority of Scripture and the church’s traditional reading on these matters. It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is “Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible”.

103. The ordination of an openly partnered homosexual bishop and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including:
􀂃 Partnership in mission is lost and damaged.
– In some provinces, there is an experience of betrayal of the teaching of the missionaries who brought the faith, and it is experienced as a new form of colonisation
-Confidence in the validity of the Anglican Communion, the bonds of affection and our mutual interdependence is severely damaged
-It is dishonouring to former Lambeth Conference decisions.
-It diverts us from our primary focus
-It is seen as leading to “sexual license”
-It damages ecumenical and interfaith relationships.
-Bishops cannot be a symbol of unity when their consecration itself divides the church. The unique focus for catholicity in the Communion is lost.
-In some regions the issue has become a test of orthodoxy and a basis for hostile actions
– In some places the church is ridiculed as the “gay church”, so membership is lost.

104. There have also been positive effects in parts of Canada, the US and England when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment.

Read it carefully and read it all.