Kwong: Good afternoon. This is my first Lambeth and I confess I did not go to indaba this morning. I had something else to do but I want to give you my impression of the conference which has taken place and this is a great privileged to be a part of this conference and like any other conference there are good and bad things.

For this conference I found most things here are very good in particular the worship in the morning and the bible studies where we have a chance to reflect and share our views about the conference and the communion difficulties in relations to the bible.

One thing I found disappointing is that we have spent a lot of time sharing and listening but I wish we could have more time to talk about actions and what might happen from here with regard to the issues that are causing division. We have been beating about the bush and “talking” about the issues facing the communion for a long time. It is time to deal with it.

From Hong Kong in particular we want to see that all parties concerned would have a chance to sit down and work around something concrete to resolve the issues. We want somebody or a team with some diplomatic skills to invite all of the parties and look at the issues. We in Hong Kong respect what people are taking about and doing.

But all these people are saying, everyone is saying, that what they have done is correct in their context. Now we are asking all of these people to stop defending what they do or accusing others. Come instead together and say what sacrifice and concessions can you make for the sake of the integrity of the communion; for the sake of the integrity of the church. I was hoping this conference to ask us for a forward in that way.

Read it all.

Q: Have you been hearing from your fellow bishops from other parts of the world that they are still troubled by what the US has done?

A: Oh, yes. I’ve asked some of the bishops in countries where Christians are a persecuted minority, and I’ve asked them, have the actions of the Episcopal Church in 2003 caused problems for you and your people? One bishop said to me, “Of course, my brother, it’s caused tremendous problems.” They are persecuted every day by a Muslim majority. But he said to me, “I’m not asking you to make my life easier. I just want you to know what it has done here.” He is willing to bear the cross. If standing up for the least in his society, the voiceless who are people of homosexual orientation, if that is the price he must pay, he is willing to bear that cross. But he wants you to know that it’s a cross for him in a way that Americans do not have to bear.

Q: Americans have been the subject of quite a bit of discussion, and some of the proposals are pretty restrictive. Obviously, they are still proposals, but do you sense a movement toward some more punitive measures coming out of Lambeth?

A: There is some movement. Some want to use the language of judgment and of punitive actions and of bans. But there is something about banning people, banning actions of people who believe they are led by the Holy Spirit, there’s something about that that is very difficult for other Christians to do. I don’t believe there will be any bans coming out of this Lambeth Conference. Why? Because we’ve prayed together, we’ve studied the Scriptures together. We’ve argued together forcefully. How then can you ban your brother or your sister because they disagree with you on some fundamental things about ethics and morality? But Jesus, in one of his great parables, when he’s talking about who is to enter the kingdom of heaven, those who are entering the kingdom of heaven are entering not because of anything around sexual ethics or what they believe about women or views about interpretation of Scripture. Jesus said those who enter the kingdom are those who have fed hungry people. They are housing those who have no home. They are visiting people in prison and in hospitals. They are giving a cup of water to those who are thirsty. When we get back to these issues, I think it would be a wonderful thing if, when people think of the Anglican Communion, they think of oh, how they love each other and how they are feeding a hungry world, not oh, those are the ones who are bickering about sex.

Read it all.

Q: What kinds of things are you hearing? What are some of those tough issues that are really causing tensions?

A: Well, I think the toughest issue is human sexuality and I think that that’s — there are lots of other issues that are around that issue, but that’s the one that seems to be the hot point for everybody.

Q: And what are you hearing from your fellow bishops on that issue?

A: Well, you hear the whole spectrum, from people that basically agree with the role that the American church has taken in examining this issue, and people that disagree with us but still want to work together in mission and still want to be in Communion, and then there are those parts of the Communion who feel that the Episcopal Church has gone too far, and they want us to leave the Communion or be part of it in a different way.

Q: How is that working out in the dialogue? Is it frustrating relationships?

A: Well, for me whenever we move into that place where we’re talking about the juridical aspects of this, it makes me think that we’re not going to move forward as a Communion and that we’re not going to be able to be patient with one another, we’re not listening to one another and really taking an issue that’s a huge issue, that represents a whole lot of other issues, and try and talk them through.

Q: It does seem like there’s almost a stalemate. Do you see any forward motion, or does it feel like the same arguments over and over again?

A: Well, it depends on the day you talk to me. On some days I’ve had really significant conversations with individual bishops and groups, and I get a sense that we really are listening to one another and trying to find a path forward, and then on other days it doesn’t seem like really talking to one another, and it’s hard for me to see how we can go forward.

Read it all.

Watch it all from Anglican TV.

Q: Have you picked up on a lot of concerns from people here about things going on in the Episcopal Church?

A: I find that when I apologize for what we’ve done, in the midst of the conversation they say thank you, I’m glad to hear that that’s how you feel. William Temple, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said that the church needs to be very clear in its public pronouncements so it can be very pastoral in its application. What the Episcopal Church did in 2003 is it made a public pronouncement by action, and that action was contrary, or in contradiction to the teaching of the church, and so what we have is a public pronouncement and an official teaching that [are] incoherent with one another, and that creates, then, a very awkward situation in which what we teach and what we’ve done are at odds with one another, and there is a profound unclarity on a public level, which means on a local level every individual priest, every individual bishop has to take a stand, and once you’ve taken a stand then it’s difficult to be in a pastoral relationship with those who feel like you’ve just abandoned them or taken a position that alienates them from where they are. And so it’s just the opposite of what the archbishop said years ago, that the church needs to be very clear in its public pronouncement so it can be very pastoral in its application. We’ve turned the axiom on its end.

Q: A group here within the church has recommended that the moratorium continues and be enforced against a blessing for same-sex relationships, against gay bishops, against the cross-jurisdictional relationships. What is your reaction to these recommendations?

A: Well, I’d say this: that the Anglican Communion is in a process of trying to understand how we live in a global age. ”¦ Some of us have come to the conclusion we need some kind of covenant by which we can say this is who we are, this is how we shall live together, this is how we should treat one another. There are limits to Anglican diversity, and these are now what they are.

Q: Is that a good idea?

A: It’s a wonderful idea, because this Communion is too important in an age of globalism, in a global church, not to be able to live together with respect, with trust, and with cooperation.

Read it all.

[KIM] LAWTON: There was also intense debate about changing some of the ways the Communion operates. Some bishops are pushing for a broad statement of agreement that would help define who Anglicans are.

Bishop [MARK] LAWRENCE: There is a limit as to what diversity can allow for in the midst of a family, a community that has to trust one another.

LAWTON: Many bishops are increasingly frustrated by the seeming stalemate, and not surprisingly, there are differing opinions about whether schism can ultimately be avoided.

Bishop [PETER] BECKWITH: If we don’t change is that Communion going to continue? That remains to be seen, but I would say it’s very questionable.

Bishop TOM SHAW (Diocese of Massachusetts): On some days I have really significant conversations with individual bishops and in groups, and I get a sense that we really are listening to one another and trying to find a path forward. And then on other days it doesn’t seem like we’re really talking to one another and it’s hard for me to see how we’ll be able to go forward.

Bishop [MARC] ANDRUS: There will be a Communion. It may look different than the Communion we have today. I think most of the people here will stick with each other.

LAWTON: Organizers hope this Lambeth Conference has helped the bishops build the relationships needed to hold the Communion together. Many here say they will also need some divine intervention to make that happen.

Watch or read it all.

BMJ: We have, as you’ll know, been looking at various themes in our ”˜indaba’ groups: the bishop in mission; as a leader in faith in inter-faith encounter; at the environment; and as bishops in solidarity with the world’s poor. Some might think that these seem peripheral. I would say, however, that they are intrinsic to our life and work as bishops. These discussions have had tremendous vitality and been of great importance, enabling us to go back to our own dioceses and countries with a sense of relationship.

Today (Friday 1/8/08) and yesterday we have explored the matter of the Anglican Covenant and the continuation of the Windsor process. Our focus yesterday on human sexuality was looked at in its total context, looking at relationships and exploitation, for example. People were honest with each other and I was encouraged and inspired. We certainly do have difficulties within the Communion in this area, but other areas are also important.

It is worth mentioning that our ”˜indaba’ groups are, of course, made up of 40 or so bishops who are used and conditioned to acting as chairpersons in their day-to-day lives, so they have set that ”˜chairing’ role aside in order to really listen to one another.

I think it is clear that the Anglican Covenant will have to be something more than an exercise in discipline but draw on all the other reflections of our time here at Lambeth.

Read it all.

In their letter, the group ”” which is largely formed from the northern Church ”” said of Archbishop Harper’s address in which he made his comments about homosexuality: “We are saddened that one who is to protect the faith…should so confuse, hurt and divide the people of God.”

The group said that the archbishop’s address had “contradicted the Church of Ireland’s own position,” and added: “We are dismayed at the lack of clarity and the resulting confusion of the archbishop’s approach to human sexuality, especially homosexuality.

“We are painfully aware that this issue has the potential to rip the fabric of the Anglican Communion apart…and we are distressed that the archbishop should inflame divisions even further.”

And, speaking of the recent Global Anglican Future Conference gathering of traditional and evangelical Anglicans in Jerusalem, the group said: “Their conference statement fills us with greater confidence and engenders a greater unity than our own Primate’s speech.

“We call upon the archbishop…to reconsider his position on this issue.”

Read it all.

Q: I am wondering about the process of creating the final reflection document. As I understand it there will be a hearing this evening where bishops will discuss the latest draft and then the final version will be produced tomorrow. Will there be some meeting or some sort of final acceptance tomorrow?

A: What will happen, I assume, is that today’s draft will go to the 5:00pm hearing and then to indaba tomorrow and at that stage we will have a final document to be affirmed at the plenary tomorrow

Q: That is a different schedule than Paul gave a moment ago. He said we would have the final draft this evening.

A: We have to allow for the possibility of some feedback in indabas on Sunday, that is a possibility

Q: I have a question about the Covenant. What is the situation with that, are you hoping that you will have a show of hands or some indication of support?

A: yesterday they looked at the Covenant in two sessions. In the morning they looked at the covenant in principle and in the afternoon they looked more closely at the details. And at the end of that they even answered a questionnaire. These will be gathered and sent to the Design Group meeting in September. They intend to produce a lambent commentary that includes the bishops’ reflections at that meeting. If all of that happens, the commentary will be sent to the provinces so they can use it in their own reflections.

Q: Will there be some sort of vote or show of support for the final draft of the Reflections document?

A: No it will be affirmed in indaba.

Read it carefully and read it all.

Whether by design or by accident, the Archbishop was helped by the absence of the traditionalists who decided before their earlier meeting in Jerusalem to boycott Lambeth. By doing so, they avoided confrontation, but also removed the elements of grievance and contention. Indeed, the sharp criticism of Dr Williams’s leadership and the provocative claim that his office was a “remnant of British colonialism”, voiced in The Times by the Archbishop of Uganda, were blunted by coming from outside the mainstream.

The other inspired innovation was to avoid contentious votes and adopt instead the African indaba, a way of resolving conflicts in small groups around a metaphorical campfire. The cameradie, however, should not mask the fact that divisions remain, and not only within the Church. On issues such as gender and sexuality, the Anglican Church remains, in this country, still at odds with the generally accepted social climate. Dr Williams should not allow the Lambeth truce to impede those seeking a more liberal and open approach. Time may change attitudes, but he needs still to point the way.

The outcome has, admittedly, been a setback to convergence with Roman Catholicism. But this was always less urgent than preventing acrimonious splits within Anglicanism. By concentrating on the spiritual, his forte, Dr Williams – albeit a wilier politician than realised – has lifted the sights of a Church in trouble. He may even have led it into calmer times: no small achievement for a much maligned primate.

Read it all.

We are now in the last couple of days of Lambeth and I am feeling deeply sad.

I don’t know why at the moment ”“ everything I came here hoping for looks set to be agreed to:
It is very likely that the Windsor continuation report will be approved ”“ which means that a moratoria on gay bishops will continue etc”¦.

And it seems likely that a covenant process will be endorsed and a draft agreed to.

All this seems good to me and yet I can’t help this overwhelming sadness.

Because I am more convinced than ever that none of this will help us. Those who have stayed away will not agree to it and will continue their ministry in the States. And TEC will continue to bleat that they won’t follow the moratoria while these Africans continue to ignore it.

I believe (at this stage ”“ and there are still two days to go) that this has been the most expensive exercise in futility that I have every been to.

The Indaba groups have been a joke. I can’t believe that no zulu has stood up and taken us to account for our abuse of this process. ”˜Indaba’ is supposed to be very similar to the process our Maori use when they go onto a marae to achieve a consensus. We, on the other hand, arrived in our indaba groups only to be divided off into even smaller groups with little tasks to do ”“ little questions to answer….

Read it all.

We, the Bishops from the united churches of South Asia which include the Church of South India (1947), Church of North India (1970), Church of Pakistan (1970)`and the Church of Bangladesh (1972), present at the Lambeth Conference 2008 have embodied the unity of God’s Church in fulfillment of our Lord’s high priestly prayer “that they may all be one”. We represent nearly a quarter of the human race practicing and living all the major faiths of the world. We are grateful for our heritage of different church traditions which have contributed to our formation. The Anglican Communion, being the one common thread, connecting us all.

As united and uniting churches and full and integral members of the Anglican Communion, we wish to say that:

1. We bear witness to the Triune God and to the unity of His Church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

2. We applaud the initiative of the Archbishop of Canterbury in organizing the Walk of Witness on the London Day highlighting urgent issues of poverty, deprivation, exploitation and disease in the world and demanding speedy implementation of Millennium Development Goals.

We call upon the Anglican Communion to seriously take up this challenge and help to restore the dignity of the exploited and abused humanity. This will certainly mean an equitable sharing of resources within the Communion.

3. We urge the Communion to stand in solidarity with the marginalized and oppressed religious minorities and work for equitable justice to all especially to the women, children and dalits of South Asia and in other parts of the world as members of the one Body of Christ; for if one member suffers we all suffer. This needs to be expressed in tangible terms through living and supporting relationships.

4. However, we are saddened and disturbed by the fractured nature of the Anglican Communion today which seems primarily to have been caused by the issue of human sexuality. We do feel the pain of the absence of some bishops who have kept themselves away from this fellowship. We acknowledge the biblical norms on human sexuality and urge that within the Anglican Communion this may be upheld for the effective witness of the Gospel.

We desire that the matter may be resolved by a continuing process of listening and healing where we may be willing to forgive and accept one another generously and move towards true reconciliation.

5. So, we invite the whole Communion to do some heart-searching and in humility walk the Calvary Road so that our differences, self-justifications and arrogant attitudes may be crucified and that we all experience the power of the resurrection for the transformation of our life together in the Communion.

Signed on behalf of the participating Bishops at the Lambeth Conference 2008.

The Most Rev John Gladstone, Church of South India
The Rt Rev Brojen Malakar, Church of North India
The Most Revd. Dr. Alexander Malik, Church of Pakistan
The Most Revd Paul S. Sarker, Church of Bangladesh

Realizing that all at home are not following the events of each day on the Internet, I will share that also on Tuesday, July 29, the Archbishop presented a “President’s Address” at the conclusion of Evening Prayer. Being perfectly honest, I must report that this was not received with the same enthusiasm as his opening address about a week and a half before. Within the context of his message he did an excellent job of reporting on the state of the Communion with regard to where the two extremes of the Church are at this time. However, the bottom line of the address spoke to the basic need for the division within to endeavour to speak from the centre. This would require sacrifice as each took “a step toward the centre” and was stated without reference as to what was required of this assembly to enable this to even begin to happen. This was a difficult ending for most in attendance and was reflected in the absence of a response by the gathered community.

As the week has progressed, more time is being invested in our Indaba groups and a multitude of other settings, in the critical work that is before us, and this being the issues of sexuality and the problems related to this issue, and incursions into dioceses. This work includes the labour and reports made to us by the Windsor Continuation Committee and the Covenant Development Group in sessions presided over by the members of these respective bodies. Needless to say,there is much to be accomplished before we wrap up the meeting with a final plenary on Sunday afternoon, and the concern of most is what the outcome of the past eighteen days thus far will bring forth.

Read it all.

In the midst of our discussion today on the covenant and a possibility of one, I was reminded, and shared with my Indaba group, that incursions into dioceses by non-jurisdictional bishops have been going on since before the last Lambeth Conference. In fact, I remember being on a conference call with my then bishop, Bishop Larry Maze of Arkansas as he discussed with then Archbishop Carey the fact that the Bishop of Rwanda was coming into Arkansas and functioning without permission. Nothing was done then, and the AMiA grew out of this. This was long before the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop. While this has been going on for some time, it will most likely continue, but I do believe progress has been made. Will it be enough for all? I doubt it, but quite frankly there is not enough we could do for some who have made up their mind. One of our 38 primates told the press even before the retreat was over and this conference had officially begun that the communion “was over.” While we disagree about much, this kind of leadership will not lead us forward toward the counter cultural response Jesus calls us to.

In my Bible Study today one of our members told us the story of Ghandi, once given a New Testament. He read it all in short order and then entered a Christian church some weeks later. He walked out and commented that he saw no resemblance whatsoever in what he experienced that day and what he had read of Jesus in that book. The vast majority here are trying to remember that.

Read it all.

Alert readers will know that there is no such person as “the Bishop of Rwanda,” but leaving that aside for now, on the whole matter of boundaries please see this well researched piece and especially remember this article which shows how the Windsor Report gave a wrong interpretation of the historical data on this topic–KSH.[/i]