Once again I find myself both in much sympathy with AM but also ultimately unconvinced by their critique. I too believe it would have been best if all the Primates met to evaluate TEC’s response. However, it cannot be denied that there were clearly serious problems ”“ financial, logistical, political – with that way forward. Indeed, a case can be made that to call such a meeting at this time would have been to put on this Instrument more pressure than it could be expected to bear and be action damaging to the Communion. It is ultimately the Archbishop’s decision whether to call an emergency meeting and he clearly took advice from the Primates about whether this was needed. The consultation with the Primates showed limited support for this way forward. Apparently only 3 of the 26 Primates who replied requested such a meeting! For the Archbishop to call an unscheduled meeting when there was such limited demand would probably be irresponsible, especially if, as claimed, several primates were very hostile to the idea.

The proposed alternative is one AM describes as the creation of a “hand-picked team of supposed specialists to determine the future life of the Communion in all its representative bodies”. In addition to its rather cynical tone, this description seriously distorts the role of that group according to the letter.

It is not some separate “hand-picked team” doing its own thing but a group who will work ”˜in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group’. The reason it is needed is because, far from “acting alone in this”, the Archbishop wishes to work collegially on ”˜the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans’. Although clearly different, there are parallels in this way forward with Windsor’s proposed Council of Advice (paras 111 and 112). There is nothing at all to suggest that it will “determine the future life of the Communion”, it will simply “take certain issues forward to Lambeth”. Far from determining the future life “in all its representative bodies” it is, as noted, working closely with those bodies and “will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process” – a sign, once again, of the importance of attending Lambeth and supporting and shaping the Covenant process.

Read it all.

Thirdly, The Attenders. There will not be a common mind amongst those bishops who do attend Lambeth 08. At one end will be the group of Americans, who took part in or attended the consecration of Gene Robinson, and at the other will be those of The Global South, who believe that The Episcopal Church has failed to meet the requirements of “The Windsor Report” and ought to be disciplined in some way or another. In between them will be a wide spectrum of opinion reflecting the generally confused state of the Anglican Family in 2008.

Fourthly, Reflections. If the bishops of such large and important Provinces as Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda do not attend””and right now it seems as if they will not do so”” and go to Israel instead, then there is no hope at all that the Lambeth Conference will take strong, traditional, orthodox positions on anything of substance. Further, if they do not attend, and put all their energy into making the Israel Conference into a success, then one may draw the conclusion that the Global Anglican Communion does not exist any longer in its 2007 form, for it has lost a third or so of its membership. Also, if they do not attend, then one may draw the conclusion that the See of Canterbury is no longer the symbolic center for them, and that, henceforth, they will create their own form of a worldwide Communion and Fellowship, into which only “the orthodox” will be admitted.

In fact, if they do not attend, it would seem that the Global Anglican Communion as we have known it is finished and its resulting parts will form alliances over the next few years.

For devoted Anglicans in the West these are difficult times to live through.

Read the whole piece.

In Luke’s gospel, Jesus prays ”˜That they may be one’. The reason for this prayer is simple, ”˜that the world may believe’. The priority of unity is therefore no added extra. We should not be content to see churches and denominations proliferate. On the other hand, the goal of full visible unity in the organic sense looks mpossible, but we should at least be working towards recognising each other’s ministry and as far as possible guaranteeing an interchangeable ministry to the world.

One of the greatest seductions of our time for the church is to serve consumerism by offering Christianity up as an option in the religious market place. This eduction creeps upon us in two main ways.

Firstly, we offer the proliferation of churches, styles of worshipping and our disagreements as a conduit for evangelism. In other words we make excuses for our disunity and pretend that our division serves the gospel. Everyone can find what they want in the religious market place, we suggest. Surely this contradicts the Pentecost vision of a church of all languages, cultures, generations?
Secondly, we pretend that Christianity itself is one option among many, that other faiths serve God through differing cultures. The prevailing wisdom of our age is that no one vision of God can possibly be universal. This is the greatest lie and deceit the Church currently faces.

The universality of faith is at stake in the contemporary Anglican crisis far more than the vexed subject of homosexuality. This is partly because if the Bible has no purchase in the area of personal morality, how can it possibly be said to have any relevance to other areas? But also because the two questions are related to the lordship of Christ in each of our lives.

Our heart rightly tells us that God loves all and judges no one, because we fear that judgement, but our reading of the text tells us that these decisions are entirely out of our hands.

So if unity is a priority for evangelism, then surely evangelicals, for whom Matthew 28 has meant more than most, should recognise this dearly. Yet a false dichotomy is constantly established between truth and unity ”” as though the two are divisible. And evangelicals have stood primarily for fissiparousness and acrimony rather than going the extra mile for the sake of a Gospel which prioritises unity, and describes the church as the body of Christ.

Disunity is akin to amputation. Undoubtedly it is something which is sometimes necessary for the whole body’s health, but only to be embarked upon as the last resort.

So what do we learn about the priority of unity as far as the current dispute in the Anglican Communion is concerned? Well, it’s not over till it’s over. In other words, whether or not Gene Robinson is there or not, the Lambeth Conference is an absolute priority for Anglican Bishops if they truly want to serve unity and truth.

In his Advent letter, Dr Rowan Williams stated quite bluntly about his original invitations that refusal to meet could constitute a refusal of the cross. “I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be…We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples.”

–This article appeared in the Church of England Newspaper, December 28 2007/January 4 2008 edition, page 14

I read with interest your 27 December 2007 Statement on the proposed Global Anglican Future Conference. Thank you for unpacking the background, and for your reassurance to your faithful in Sydney that the Conference “is not designed to take the place of Lambeth”. I appreciate your conviction in upholding orthodoxy. I also share you passion in standing together with those Anglicans in North America who are courageously contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. I hope we can work together for the good of the Communion in the time to come, to the glory of God.

Your Statement at the same time leaves me, and perhaps others in the Southern Hemisphere, unclear on several crucial points. I look to you, as an archbishop charged with huge responsibility under God, for your further clarification, that your actions can lead to the strengthening of the faithful across the worldwide Communion at this time of deep crisis and uncertainty.

1. What is the particular nature of the crisis before the Communion today? You mentioned several times in your Statement that the issue is over “biblical standards”, especially “in the biblical view of sexual ethics”. I wonder if that depiction adequately reflects the crux of the matter. After all, some other churches and congregations from different traditions have also departed from the “biblical views”. I wonder if the issue before the Anglican Communion is rather this: How do we see ourselves keeping the faith and witnessing together as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” across the ages and across the oceans? Perhaps at the heart is an ecclesiological issue. So the contention has never been simply on biblical view of sex, but on the particular issues of episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and on the rites of blessing for same-sex unions. The process of discerning the Word and on keeping faith to what is revealed as a community go hand in hand. I suggest this interpretation may perhaps be fundamental, and determines how we respond and map the way forward.

Read it all.

Dan Damon looks ahead to some of the likely key religious stories of 2008.What role is religion likely to play in global politics and human relations? What effect are radical atheists having on religion? As Anglican bishops and archbishops meet for the ten yearly Lambeth Conference how will tensions over differing attitudes towards homosexuality play out; and in the Middle East how is religion likely to influence conflict and alliances in the region, and beyond?

Dan Damon is joined by Bruce Clark from the newspaper The Economist, Dr. Ghada Karmi, Research Fellow at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter in England, and Dr. Philip Jenkins Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

Listen to it all and note the comments from Archbishop Pete Akinola of Nigeria and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church (26 1/2 minutes).

For some time now, people have been asking me why I haven’t written anything on the current””or, depending on your point of view, everlasting””crisis in the Anglican world. After all, I have been an Anglican for nearly twenty-five years, virtually all of my adult life; indeed, my experiences in other denominations, before I discovered Anglicanism, were so brief and tentative that I don’t even know how to be a Christian except as an Anglican. Nor do I wish to be a Christian in any other way. Surely I have some opinions on the mess the Anglican Communion is now in, on how it got this way, and how it might get out again?

Well, yes, I do have such opinions. But they are worthless. All such opinions amount to little more than the assignation of blame for past events and predictions of the future””the latter usually involving punishments to come for those blamed for the past””and neither of those activities interests me. There was a time when they did, but I have long since learned how futile such pursuits are, and (more important) how powerfully they distract from the core practices of the Christian life. This is the primary reason why, after too long a season scanning the Anglican blogs daily, I now check just one of them, and once a week, at most. This abstinence has calmed my spirit and removed, I think permanently, my taste for such things.

Moreover, I remind myself that the churches of the Anglican world are governed by bishops, and I am not a bishop. One of the chief reasons I have held firm to Anglicanism over the years is that I believe that the threefold order of ministry””bishop, priest, and deacon””is the model taught by the apostles, the governance particularly approved by God. In this model I, as a layman””even though I am also a member of the priesthood of all believers””have a highly circumscribed role. If my pastor asks me to teach, I teach; otherwise I shut up. In the unlikely (and unwelcome) event of a bishop of the Church asking for my thoughts I would share them; otherwise I keep them to myself, at least in public. The decisions that will shape the future of the Anglican Communion will be made by bishops, not by laypeople, nor even by priests; if I care about that Communion””and I do””I had best be praying for those bishops, and not repeating the error of Job in darkening counsel by words without knowledge.

Read it all.

See what you make of it.

1. Everything is fine.
Hard as it is to believe, there are still people who are clinging to this fantasy. It is utterly false, but surprisingly widely held. It’s sort of like people on the Titanic complimenting the band.

2. Closely linked with #1 is myth #2: It is the responsibility of The Episcopal Church to fix things in the US. One of the “moderate” primates said this to me recently. I asked him, “Given that the General Convention, the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop, and the House of Bishops have all indicated that they have no intention of changing course, why on earth would you hold out hope that the Episcopal Church is really going to change course and come in line with Biblical faith?” He replied, “Because the alternative is unthinkable.”

Now entering “Unthinkable….”

Read the whole piece.

After centuries of rather tense coexistence, serious trouble developed in the last half-century. North American liberal Anglicans proved to be adept at church politics, gained control of the church hierarchy, and promoted a steady stream of theological innovations that assaulted the core beliefs of the conservatives.

Bishop Ingham, for example, has suggested that we should “stop thinking of ourselves as created beings” and stop thinking of Easter as “something understandable.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Anglican membership has declined steadily in North America.

In contrast, the dominantly conservative “Global South” Anglican churches have been growing explosively. More than two-thirds of all Anglicans now come from Africa, Asia or South America. And they are now tasked with mediating the divorce of the North American church.

Can we assign blame in this ecclesiastical divorce? Was one of the parties “unfaithful” (pun unavoidable)? Liberal Anglican spokesman Neale Adams summarizes the liberal vision as: “a big-tent church . . . open to a wide variety of theologies, and we think that’s good.” To my ear, this is a bit like the cheating husband saying, “Ours is an open relationship, embracing a wide variety of extra-marital affairs.”

The liberals seem to be genuinely astonished that anyone would have a problem with this — saying, in effect, “You can teach that Jesus rose from the dead, if you like, but don’t hassle us if we teach that he didn’t.”

Read it all.

There are clearly a number of centrifugal forces currently threatening the unity of the Anglican Communion. The focus of these for many is the issue of the proper response to same-sex unions and here I have suggested there is a wide spectrum of views among Anglicans which can be broadly classified into four groups: rejection, reassertion, reassessment and reinterpretation.

Faced with these divisions, the Communion responded by addressing the underlying ecclesiological questions relating to how we live together in communion and maintain our unity in the face of diversity. This produced the Windsor Report and now the Windsor Process (and within it the covenant process). This has articulated a vision of life in communion that I have called ‘communion Catholicism’ and then sought to apply that to the differences over sexuality.

The danger is that this process has, in turn, produced (or perhaps uncovered) further points of tension. At the level of principle there are new fracture lines developing as, competing with the Windsor vision, there are at least two other alternative ways of envisioning our life together – what I’ve called connectional confessionalism and autonomous inclusivism. These now supplement the tensions over sexuality and (in as much as there is a correlation between these and the two extremes of the sexuality spectrum) they may strengthen and reinforce them. At the level of practice there are those who, even if they share Windsor’s vision of life in communion and reject these two alternative paradigms, are unhappy with at least some of Windsor’s practical outworkings of this vision in relation to how the Communion should respond to its diversity over sexuality.

In addition to these three different levels of tension over more theoretical areas – attitudes to sexuality, visions of life in Communion, the implications of Windsor for sexuality – there is now the added and most pressing concrete question of discerning whether, if one accepts Windsor’s proposals in relation to the current crisis, TEC has (as JSC argue)accepted and implemented Windsor’s recommendations.

Finally, these forces are at play within and between at least four different institutional arenas within the Communion’s life – individual provinces and their relationships with other provinces, the Instruments of Communion, coalitions of provinces, and unofficial networks of committed protagonists.

Miraculously, for the last five years (since the current high-level tensions really began with the decisions of New Westminster diocese) the Instruments have been able to bring together all the provinces (though at ACC Nottingham, TEC and Canada attended as observers) and facilitate ongoing conversation across these various divides and wide spectra of beliefs and visions for the Communion. It has done so even as inter-provincial relationships and eucharistic fellowship among the Primates broke down. The challenge now is whether and how that achievement can be maintained, especially in relation to Lambeth 2008, and, if it cannot, what sort of viable ‘second best’ arrangements can be developed or ‘amicable separations’ negotiated.

Read it all.

The Anglican church in The Bahamas and worldwide is faced with a serious challenge, and Archbishop Drexel Gomez says he hopes and prays that they find a collective way forward to avoid the route of a split. This came from Gomez during his charge at the recent 107th session of the Synod, at Holy Trinity Conference Centre.

“Paul singles out homosexual intercourse for special attention because he regards it as providing a particularly graphic image of the way in which humans distort God’s created order. God the Creator made man and woman for each other, to cleave together, to be fruitful and multiply.

“When human beings ‘exchange’ these created roles for homosexual intercourse, they embody the spiritual condition of those who have ‘exchanged’ the truth about God for a lie.”

Read it all.

Take a look here on the index list of items in the right hand margin where you see “Archives by Area”. I see England 368, The Episcopal Church 366, and Lambeth 345. Then I see this: Africa 38, Nigeria 34, Uganda 31, Southeast Asia 23, and South America 20.

I see a clear message sent here, I just wonder if those who are sending it are aware of the clear bell they are ringing.

Read it carefully and read it all.

I had high hopes for Katharine Jefferts Schori when she was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. Although she appeared to be on the extreme ”˜left’ of the Anglican spectrum in many of her actions and statements, it was clear that here was a person of great depth, and a hinterland beyond church politics. There was a possibility at one stage that she might even attempt to lead the Episcopal Church into a process of reconciliation internally and with the Anglican Communion, at least temporarily stalling the lemming-like dash of her Church into heterodox oblivion.

It seems I was mistaken. So far she has shown the same adaptability of her predecessor. Like Bishop Frank Griswold she’s signed statements at Primates’ Meetings and then gone on to reject them in every particular. It always struck me as the height of absurdity that Bishop Griswold could sign the Primates’ Communiqué from the October 2003 meeting of the Primates, warning his own Church that to consecrate Gene Robinson would result in the ”˜tearing of the fabric’ of the Communion and then to preside at the consecration of Robinson himself only a month or two later. His adaptability owed itself to his oft-expressed belief in ”˜pluriform truths’. Consequently, he could enter into the opposing truths of the Primates, and the Episcopal Church, simultaneously. Most people would call this duplicity, his defenders would probably call it ”˜postmodernism’.
Interestingly enough, while ditching the nauseating term ”˜pluriform’, Katharine Jefferts Schori has taken a similar trajectory. At the Primates’ Tanzania meeting she assented to a communiqué calling on the Episcopal Church to put in place moratoria on same-sex blessings and consecrations, to cease lawsuits, and to provide a system of ”˜alternative primatial oversight’ which reported to an international Anglican panel, of which she herself would be a member. Months later, it turns out, that she didn’t mean this at all. Sure, the American House of Bishops have promised some restraint over elections of practicing homosexual bishops, but they’ve said nothing meaningful about either samesex blessings or instituted any real changes to their system of ”˜extended’ Episcopal visitation which is rejected by the very people it is intended to serve. But the area in which she has most betrayed the very same statement which she once signed up to, is on the matter of lawsuits. It feels impossible to keep count of the number of priests deposed by dioceses, or the number of disputes over property throughout the Episcopal Church. The biggest, of course, will be over dioceses extricating themselves from the Episcopal Church and linking to other Anglican provinces. It seems clear that Southern Cone is preparing to take dioceses under their wing, but there may also be African provinces prepared to offer similar ”˜oversight’ to so-called ”˜network’ dioceses. These dioceses argue that to be part of the Episcopal Church is a voluntary agreement, and testify that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church and the Bishop’s link to the Anglicanism through the recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury is unrelated to the Provincial structures. So far three dioceses: San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh have taken steps to remove clauses relating to unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church from their own diocesan constitutions. These steps require votes at two diocesan conventions. It is by no means certain that these moves at the second convention will gain the required votes, but Presiding Bishop Schori is out to get them.
In recent open letters to the dioceses she has threatened the bishops with deposition, under the almost summary procedure of a canon on the abandonment of communion. The canon is a housekeeping exercise, a way of deposing priests, and bishops separately who have already departed the Episcopal Church to another church completely. There is no trial, no ecclesiastical court, just a determination of abandonment of communion by a communion, a period of two months to recant, a hearing at the House of Bishops and a vote by the bishops. Ordinarily this canon shouldn’t be used until a bishop has actually departed communion, but the Presiding Bishop intends to use this measure, rather than presentment and a trial of a bishop, in order to hasten matters along. She will then declare the dioceses vacant, gather the parishes which remain loyal and have them elect a new bishop. Furthermore, it is the intention of the Episcopal Church to make sure that no churches, or dioceses, align themselves to any other part of the Anglican Communion and take their property with them. So the path she has chosen is not to seek reconciliation and peace with priests and bishops opposed to the direction of the Episcopal Church but to threaten them – thereby alienating them further. There is no doubt that this will be read widely as a further abandonment of the Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church. But it may also be a sign that at last their true colours are being revealed and the dominant liberal faction in the Episcopal Church is resigned to accepting the logic of their position and going it alone.

–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, November 16, 2007 edition, page 12

In the case of TEC, moreover, the issue is complicated by a polity that seeks to frustrate the maintenance of any stance which views women’s ordination in strict terms of reception, not done-and-dusted acceptance: that is, as an innovation being tested and received – or not. Because TEC has rejected this understanding, and because a PEV (provisional Episcopal visitor) scheme was not adopted, the traditional position has been maintained not across the geographical spectrum (as in the UK; or as in the Communion at large), but in specific dioceses of TEC: dioceses which now feel they have nowhere to go but into zones of special integrity and survivalism – and into the company, though they may not say it too loudly, of those who are chiefly friends of expedience and not of core ”˜catholic’ principle.

I mention this because in TEC, while there may be a general spirit abroad for carving out a special province in the light of theological innovations by ”˜the revisionist majority,’ the number of bishops actually seeking such a solution are relatively few at present (perhaps the three hard-pressed anglo-catholic dioceses; and Pittsburgh). This is because hope still exists on the part of a number of bishops, and of a large number of parishes outside their dioceses, that another way forward is possible. This may be due to not liking what they are seeing-legally, emotionally, morally, practically-when dioceses seek to move out of TEC or otherwise form a new province or structure; it may be for lack of having a clear sense of what to do, for godly or for less salutary reasons; it may have to do with belief in a communion accountability that simply will take more time, at a time when time feels short all the same.

Read it all

His five arguments are:

–Present Anglican polity has severe design flaws.
–Our doctrinal boundaries are too vague.
–Current “Instruments of Communion” are not up to current challenges.
–Liturgical chaos prevents unity.
–Doctrine trumps polity and Scripture trumps tradition, not vice versa.

Read it all.

A friend recently asked us what TEC’s decline in membership and ASA (average Sunday attendance) in recent years meant on a daily basis. We’ve had a few minutes to crunch some numbers. (The 2006 TEC domestic data is still rough as exact diocese by diocese figures have not yet been released. We’re using 2006 figures for Provinces 1-8 with 2005 figures for Haiti, Dominican Republic, Taiwan, Micronesia and the Churches in Europe subtracted out). For 2000 and 2005 data we’ve used official TEC data found here.

2000 TEC Domestic Membership: 2,329,045
2006 estimated Domestic Membership: 2,156,043

membership loss in 6 years: 173,002 (-7.4%, a loss of 1.2% per year)

This equates to an average loss of 28,834 members per year (or losing a diocese the size of the diocese of Ohio per year)

This also equates to losing an average of 79 members PER DAY.
(The median parish in TEC had 174 members in 2005. So this equates to losing an average parish every two – three days for 6 years.)

2000 TEC Domestic ASA: 856,579
2006 estimated Domestic ASA: 764,660

ASA loss in 6 years: 91,919 (-10.7%, a loss of 1.8% per year)

ASA loss per year: 15,320,
This is 15,000+ attendees lost every year for 6 years, which is equivalent to losing the diocese of Southwest Florida or Central Florida every year. (They ranked 13th and 14th in TEC in 2005)

ASA loss per day: 42 attendees.
The 2005 median ASA is 74 attendees, so this means losing an average congregation of worshippers every 2 days for 6 years.

And the loss rate since 2003 has only accelerated:

2002 domestic membership (using 2002 as it is the year prior to the disaster of GC03): 2,320,221
2006 estimated domestic membership: 2,156,043

2002 – 2006 membership loss: 164,178 in 4 years. (-7.1%, a loss of 1.8% per year)

loss per year: 41,045 (equivalent to losing a diocese the size of Chicago or Washington (in the top 15 among domestic dioceses, every year — less than 15 domestic dioceses had 40,000+ members in 2005)

loss per day: 112 members (losing an entire parish every 1.5 days)

2002 TEC Domestic ASA: 846,640
2006 estimated Domestic ASA: 764,660

Total ASA loss in 4 years: 81,980 (-9.7%, a loss of 2.4% per year)

loss per year: 20,495
This is equivalent to losing a diocese almost the size of Los Angeles or Connecticut every single year. These are the fifth and sixth largest dioceses in terms of ASA. Only 6 ECUSA dioceses out of 100 domestic dioceses have total ASA of 20,000 or more.

ASA loss per day: 56
equals losing an “average” congregation (weekly attendance) every 1.5 days.

Of course we’ll update and verify this analysis when official diocesan data comes out
— elfgirl

This debate is at the heart of the arguments in the Anglican Communion.

For some, being Anglican means belonging to a particular hierarchical Church organisation with a specific set of rules (canons). Those of “Anglo- or Liberal-Catholic” persuasion identify the church by the “Bishop at the altar”. The Bishop has a geographical jurisdiction. This Roman approach was settled at the Council of Whitby in 697. The Celtic Church “lost” the argument for having more flexible ways of working.

Since all Christians in a geographical area were presumed to be in fellowship with the Bishop round his altar, at the Reformation the Church of England accommodated those who took different views on matters that were not required by the scripture. It differed from some of the Reformation churches in distinguishing those matters required scripture, and those cultural matters which were allowable as long as they did not go against scripture. Elizabeth I insisted that she could not make windows into men’s souls. It was enough to subscribe to the articles of faith and the Book of Common Prayer.

But there is more to be said.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently written Bishop Howe of Central Florida, in a letter now made public, concerned that traditionalist parishes ought to see the Diocese, in distinction to ”˜the National” or “provincial Church,’ as the main unit of Christian faith and teaching, in sacramental unity with the Anglican Communion through his own office. (This view has been generally accepted as a definition of fundamental Anglican polity and has been explicitly assumed in all of the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statements.) The Primates have also recognized bishops like Howe who uphold the Camp Allen principles. In a climate where the ”˜National Church’ may seek to arrogate to itself more authority than the Archbishop of Canterbury believes is proper, individual Dioceses appear vulnerable to many – especially when alternatives present themselves in the name of offering a more secure reality, outside of TEC altogether.

One of the useful aspects of the Network was its granting to ”˜traditionalists’ a measure of identification, still inside TEC, but laterally with other Dioceses, as the main unit of Christian faith and teaching, to pursue the Archbishop’s stated concern. Bishops like Howe, Stanton, Salmon and others availed themselves of this for this reason, and also because it was consistent with what the Archbishop here writes. In the meantime, however, the Network as originally intended has collapsed, and in its place or alongside it a new reality has emerged in the form of a Common Cause College, whose mechanisms for ”˜unity in faith’ are different to what the Archbishop describes. This has made the plight of Bishop Howe and others more complicated, precisely as parishes seek to leave and find places in this College or somewhere else.

What is necessary, then, is for the diocesan unit, in conjunction with other dioceses who affirm the Communion’s teaching and discipline as Windsor and the Camp Allen principles outline them, to find the place that the Network sought to provide, and to build on what the Archbishop is here underscoring. At a time when the individual bishops of TEC struggle to affirm requests made of them by the Primates, and when some openly reject even the generous assessment made by the JSC, it is all the more imperative for Camp Allen Bishops and their Dioceses to stand in the place the Archbishop has argued is the most secure place, whilst the evaluation of TEC is still being processed.

Read it all.

The way the individual Orthodox churches have handled international disagreements between them is unfamiliar to Anglicans but well known to the Orthodox.7 The disagreements have often been concerned with rival jurisdictions, which might seem trivial compared with the doctrinal and ethical problems facing Anglicans. Nevertheless, the serious way the Orthodox have handled them is illuminating. Since the various Orthodox churches are independent of each other, irreconcilable disagreements between them have tended to result in excommunication, though this is not necessarily mutual. In 1870 Constantinople excommunicated the Church of Bulgaria for insisting on intruding a Bulgarian bishop into the territory of Constantinople, to minister to its own nationals. The two churches remained out of communion until 1945. Since the Oecumenical Patriarch is only a first among equals, however, his action did not exclude the Church of Bulgaria from the Orthodox Church, and the Church of Russia remained in communion with both contestants.8 In 1996-7 the Oecumenical Patriarch was himself excommunicated for a short time by Moscow for restoring the autocephalous Church of Estonia without Moscow’s consent. Obviously, excommunication is a very serious step to take, expressing not just difference of opinion but the gravest disapproval””a step which needs to be withdrawn as soon as it properly can be; but the experience of the Orthodox is that it does not destroy the church, and may sometimes bring about the necessary change of heart without a long delay.

If, therefore, after the latest Primates’ Meeting, following whatever time for reflection the Meeting has decided to allow, there has been no sign of repentance on the part of the Episcopal Church, and it seems that nothing short of excommunication can bring home to that Church the error of its ways, the individual Anglican churches should not hesitate to take this unprecedented step and the more of them that do so the better, as their action will not be irreversible. If there is disagreement within a province whether to take this step, some of its dioceses may want to take action individually, and
there does not seem to be any reason why they should not do so: in that case, the archbishop will be in the same position as any other diocesan bishop. Provision will obviously need to be made for those who are the victims rather than the culprits in the American tragedy, and determined efforts made to reunite all the scattered fragments of faithful American Anglicanism which exist outside as well as inside the Episcopal Church. It is a task which seems likely to require much patience and understanding, but in the changed situation might be achievable.

Read it all.

In a remarkable article in the London-based Church Times (13th April), Canon Gregory Cameron, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion, publicly distanced Anglicanism from Protestantism. Canon Cameron spoke of an Anglican “dialogue with the Protestant traditions,” making it clear that he regarded Anglicanism as lying beyond the pale of Protestantism. Many in Ireland will regard his views with puzzlement, and perhaps not a little concern. So will many historians.

We need to appreciate that the sixteenth-century Reformation was a complex phenomenon. There was no single Protestant ”˜template’. Rather, a variety of reforming movements emerged during the sixteenth century, whose specific forms were shaped by local politics and personalities, as much as by the broader commitment to a recognizably Protestant agenda. The forms of Protestantism which emerged in the great imperial cities (such as Strasbourg), territories (such as Saxony) and nations (such as England or Sweden) had their own distinct characteristics. Some, for example, retained the episcopacy and a fixed liturgy; others discarded one or both. Yet each represented a local implementation of the Protestant agenda.

Historians generally consider that one of the most remarkable and influential forms of Protestantism emerged in England, and has come to be known as ”˜Anglicanism’. Reformers in the reign of Henry VIII did not refer to themselves as ”˜Protestants’, partly because this was seen to have foreign associations at the time. (Henry VIII, it will be recalled, disliked foreigners having influence over English affairs.) Yet from the reign of Edward VI onwards, English Church leaders began to use this term to refer to themselves, and see themselves as being connected with the great reforming movements and individuals on the continent of Europe.

Read it all.

12. The route from Sect-type, extra-mural Anglicanism, to the Denominational-type of Anglicanism (which is necessary in order to become an alternative Province to the PECUSA in the USA) is a route that has NEVER been undertaken before anywhere in the world. In the conditions of the USA (with great emphasis on liberty and the right to express personal opinions) it will be extremely difficult even to get started on moving on this unexplored and un-chartered route. But the Common Cause Partnership has begun. And we pray that out of the many will be made the One. [Yet one wonders whether the Primates who are encouraging the creation of the Sect-type, extra-mural, Anglicanism, have thought about in any detail the immensity of the task in creating an alternative Province to PECUSA. Further, has any one of them seriously thought about the 1977 seceders and whether or not they should be consulted and involved in the route towards one Province for all seceders?]

13. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father. Paul tells us that there cannot be truth without unity and unity without truth in his Epistle to Ephesus; and Jesus in his Priestly Prayer in John 17 prays that we shall be one for that is his will. Many of us appear not to desire to be one! We think that possessing what we regard as truth is sufficient to justify our isolated standing before God in sect-type churchmanship. Maybe we are beginning to change our minds and see that truth and unity, or unity and truth, belong always together and to claim to have truth and to shun unity is a totally false position.

Read it all.

We elves and some of our friends have been busy analyzing TEC bishops’ statements. We’ve found a troubling pattern. We hope this analysis will be helpful, and encourage you to circulate this widely. (please credit T19 if you do circulate this)

—-
Important Update: In the course of discussing this with readers, I’ve realized I made a mistake in lumping together the five bishops who included the “breadth of response” language in their responses to the New Orleans statement. In particular [b]+Ed Little[/b] should not just have been lumped in the list as if he was trying to exploit some loophole. Upon re-reading his statement, that would be clearly UNTRUE. Please see my comment #44 below. Apologies for the confusion and not giving +Little’s statement more careful attention. It shouldn’t have been just lumped in the batch. –elfgirl

Some TEC Bishops try to exploit a perceived loophole and hide the truth

In my work the other night compiling and organizing various TEC bishops’ letters and statements following the New Orleans HoB meeting, one phrase began to leap out at me as it was repeated and emphasized by quite a few TEC bishops. Some among the TEC bishops, notably +Jack McKelvey, seemed to be claiming that the public same sex blessings occurring in their dioceses fall under the Primates’ allowance of a “breadth of private pastoral response.”

Two examples should suffice, though at least 5 bishops, and perhaps others, have highlighted this phrase in their discussions of the New Orleans HoB meeting:

+Duncan Gray of Mississippi:

We also articulated, again as requested, the fact that this church has never authorized the blessing of same gender unions. We spoke clearly to the fact that a majority of dioceses already function on this matter in the way that we do in this diocese. We also made reference, as the Primate of Australia suggested we do, to the fact that the Primates themselves have affirmed that pastoral care for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters requires the Communion ”˜to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”

+Jack McKelvey of Rochester, (a bishop and diocese who are on record (see pp 11 ”“ 13) as supporting and allowing public SSBs for nearly 30 years):

We quoted the Primates in their May 2003 statement saying that we have a pastoral duty, “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “. . . It is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” This will be honored in the Diocese of Rochester and I believe in many dioceses throughout our church.

+Larry Benfield of Arkansas(a diocese which had just recently, under +Benfield’s predecessor +Larry Maze, begun to allow public SSBs to be conducted by its clergy; +Benfield may be changing the policy in the diocese, it is not yet totally clear.) also specifically cited “breadth of private response” language, as did +Henry Parsley of Alabama and +Ed Little of Northern Indiana.

So, what were the Primates actually affirming in May 2003, and is the TEC HoB’s adoption of this phrase consistent with the original usage or intent? It appears that this is a key question. Let’s trace the history of this language and the intent behind the original language, first looking at the actual use of this phrase in New Orleans.

1. TEC HoB Usage of the Phrase “Breadth of … response” in New Orleans

On Sept. 24, in the midst of the TEC HoB meeting, TitusOne Nine published the proposed draft of the TEC response to the primates. That draft response included this section:

5. Because we are a liturgical church our actions concerning blessings are expressed in public liturgies. No rite of blessing for persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies. Even in the absence of such public rites, we acknowledge that the blessing of same sex unions, no matter how public or private, is unacceptable to some of our brothers and sisters in our own House, in our church, and in the Communion. The issue remains perplexing for us as we seek to balance these concerns about rites of blessing and the pressing pastoral need that confronts us. We wish to offer respect for these differing viewpoints.

We are grateful that the Primates have articulated their support for meeting the individual pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons. In 2003 they wrote “there is a duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to homosexual persons.” The Primates have written that there must be a breadth of private and pastoral responses to individual situations. It is the case that for many decades, the Episcopal Church has explored the most faithful ways of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life. We acknowledge that in some of our dioceses this includes the blessing of same sex unions.

Note how here the proposed text explicitly acknowledges the public blessings of same-sex unions occurring in various dioceses and tries to claim that such blessings fall under the “breadth of … pastoral responses” envisioned by the Primates. The TEC bishops suggest and appear to want to believe that the only matter of concern to the Primates was the official authorization of liturgical rites for same-sex blessings at a national level, in spite of the fact that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué explicitly stated the Primates’ concern about TEC’s “pastoral provision” in various dioceses.

In the final statement from New Orleans, that section re: Same-sex blessings was modified to read as follows:

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions

We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “…It is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”

Again, the TEC bishops are trying to claim that the Primates’ 2003 statement would encompass and allow the current practice of public same sex blessings occurring in many TEC dioceses.

As noted, the language in question goes back to the May 2003 Primates’ Communiqué following the Primates meeting in Gramado, Brazil. Let’s look at that more closely…

Read it all (you can also download this)

Response to the Report of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Primates On The Reply of the American House of Bishops

The JSC has determined that the American HOB has responded adequately to requests from the Anglican Primates for clarification of their response to the Windsor Report both in terms of the approval of additional bishops in committed same-sex relationships and the approval of same-sex blessings.

The JSC concludes that a majority of bishops have committed themselves to withhold consents to election of candidates for bishop in same sex relationships. This is I believe actually the case. The meeting in New Orleans did express a consensus that consents would be withheld at least until after the next General Convention. I suspect that if there is a Lambeth Conference in the offing the HOB will in all likelihood refrain from giving the necessary consents until after Lambeth.

The JSC has accepted the declaration of the HOB that TEC has not authorized public rites for same-sex blessing though reserving the right for private pastoral response. The JSC makes clear that “we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of the private personal response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority, ”˜until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.’”

At this point the statement becomes really an exercise in subterfuge….
The JSC accepts the undertaking made by the HOB in terms that the HOB never set and which are contradicted by numerous facts on the ground and the explicit statements of many bishops. By saying that such blessings when they take place are “without the bishop’s authority” the JSC is replaying on the communion wide stage the comical picture of LA bishop Bruno denying that the same-sex blessing described in the New York Times announcement page was going forward with his knowledge or authority. This is an attempt to finesse an issue that even the secular press will find duplicitous. It is inconceivable the HOB would discipline any of its members for allowing public same-sex blessings. A real undertaking not to authorize would mean to discipline those who take unauthorized action. This seems an attempt to generate a legal fiction for the purpose of giving TEC a pass by virtue of living into a legal fiction that it did not in its deliberations agree to. Meanwhile the spirit of Windsor cooperation which is what is really needed has been simply repudiated. The JSC is trying to give the HOB a way of playing the character Sargent Schultz from the sitcom Hogan’s Heroes. Schultz the German guard turned a blind eye to the shenanigans of the prisoners and when asked by his superiors about transgressions said famously, “I know nothing, I know nothing.” By its finesse and fine parsing of language the JSC is helpfully feeding the HOB this line. They are saying in effect, “we are going to say we take it in this way, you don’t protest and you will be able to say, ”˜we know nothing.’”

The JSC also takes up the issues of alternate Primatial Oversight. It encourages the Presiding Bishop to consult further with dissenting groups but “we believe the Presiding Bishop has opened a way forward. There is within this proposal (the plan announced at NOL) the potential for the development of a scheme which, with good will on the part of all parties could meet their needs.” So they ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to use his office to bring together the leaders of TEC and the dissenting dioceses for further negotiation but put their prestige behind what the PB has put on the table. They suggest that possibly the Panel of Reference might be resurrected.

They encourage the ABC to use his office to discourage law suits on all sides. This is the single positive contribution in the report.

The JSC scold those primates who have offered emergency pastoral care to American parishes for not abiding by the Windsor Report and call for a determined effort to bring interventions to an end. They ask the ABC to convene talks between the intervening bishops and the TEC bishops of the diocese in which the interventions occur.

The JSC commends the listening process called for by Lambeth.

The JSC suggests that the there is an emerging consensus in the communion “which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them. Here The Episcopal Church and the Instruments of Communion speak with one voice.”

The essence of the JSC report is to try to sell on a Communion wide basis the American HOB fiction that because no new liturgies have been authorized and no new elections consented to the American Church is Windsor compliant.

There is a willful distortion of reality in this report that raises the most serious questions about whether the Primates can themselves be an instrument of unity and exercise meaningful authority in the communion. This report will not help the communion stay together. It is in every way a clever and artful (in the sinister sense of that word) document designed to deceive and cry peace where there is no peace. It can only seem odious to plain speaking people looking for plain talk about the really somber prospect of the break up of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. The ABC and the Primates have been badly let down by this report. I look with anticipation for a minority report from Bishop Mouneer Anis.

The sad fact is that, on any careful objective reading of the HoB statement, the glass is nowhere near either ”˜half full’ or ”˜half empty’. It may appear to be so on first examination but in fact once one has removed the froth there is little nourishing left in the glass. To change the metaphor, what is being offered here are essentially the same TEC sweets the Communion has been offered over recent years only now in a more attractive wrapping and with a stronger sugar coating.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the American church has already walked too far apart from the Communion and too much of it sincerely believes that it has walked that way led by the Spirit. As a result, despite much prayer and great effort by many, what has been offered by its bishops to the Communion is ”˜too little, too late’.

The challenge now, with the Lambeth Conference less than a year away, is to discern what this means for the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole. That is a task that cannot be left to the Archbishop on his own or relying solely on advisors at Lambeth and the Anglican Communion Office. It requires the Primates who offered their guidance at Dar to be gathered in some manner so as to provide a common and coherent response to the statement from TEC’s HoB on the basis of their own understanding of the needs and demands we are facing together. There can be little doubt that TEC’s relationship with the Communion still remains as it was declared to be at Dar ”“ “damaged at best” – and that “this hasconsequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”.

Read it all.

Read it all.

the two excellent posts at Stand Firm this morning.

Matt’s: The Fall of the Windsor Bishops, the loss of the House”¦

Sarah’s: After a Battle, What Do We Do: Traveling Home

Both insightful and helpful in this elf’s humble opinion.

Fr. Matt Kennedy of Stand Firm has a very interesting analysis of Bp. John Howe’s proposal. He offers point by point commentary. Here’s an excerpt:

Bishop John Howe’s proposal is not perfect. It would, had the Archbishop of Canterbury been willing call a Primates meeting between now and Lambeth and withdraw Lambeth invitations, be unnecessary. But in light of the Archbishop’s apparent unwillingness to do what his office demands, the only way to preserve Communion unity will be for the House of Bishops to act sacrificially.

Bishop Howe has offered a proposal to the House of Bishops that, if implemented, essentially accomplishes what the orthodox (in general) have been seeking while, at the same time, allowing the revisionists a gracious way to remain true to their theological and ecclesial convictions. There is, as Bishop Howe suggests, pain enough for all, but the brilliance of the proposal is that it does not require the sacrifice of core principles.

The proposal incorporates 8 points. Each point is listed below followed by a brief comment.

”1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.”

The resolution of the Windsor Bishops is best articulated in the MacPherson resolutions and as Bishop Howe notes, they are wholly consistent with the Dar Es Salaam (DES) Communique. This first step, voting on the MacPherson resolutions, is crucial because it, rightly, sets up the DES Communique as the criterion by which bishops identify themselves as Windsor or non-Windsor bishops. The DES Communique asks for honesty from the American church. Are we willing to abide both by the spirit and the letter of present Communion standards?

2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen )

.
This second step circumvents one of the more intractable difficulties in our current debate. Revisionists argue that the unique polity of the Episcopal Church does not allow bishops to make the decisions that the DES asks them to make and, further, that the DES requests themselves reveal a deep misunderstanding of not only the American church, but the provincial autonomy at the heart of the Anglican Communion structure. But this proposal calls for a self-sacrificial voluntary removal for the sake of Christian charity rather than forced submission to what revisionists see as coercive demands. At the same time, for the orthodox, this voluntary removal provides the necessary space and distinction between false teaching and true, heresy and orthodoxy called for in the scriptures.

The whole entry is here.

Read it all.

Clearly, the debated vision of “communion” present in our Anglican turmoil is tied to this, not only historically, but conceptually and theologically. We are in the midst of a grand movement towards and through democratization: its gifts are potentially and really (in many cases) great, especially in terms of the kinds of democratic charisms that we rightly cherish here and wish to support elsewhere: individual freedoms, protection of rights, the coherent rule of law and appeal, and accountability. The Church’s place in this movement is not peripheral, however, since – at least as we believe, and indeed even as students of democratization recognize with or without a religious lens – the persuasive moral frameworks by which the violence of autonomy is checked and transformed are not only the special charism of the Church, but is also a divine imperative for human history’s ordering.

The current Covenant process can be seen in terms of those elements bound to the choices we earlier claimed face all democratizing movements: we can choose to move towards a retrenchment of confrontative blame, whereby the boundaries of a pure confessionalism deny the possibility of open discussion and engagement across local units; we can choose a path that leads to the dissolution of accountability altogether, through a kind of the federalist model of autonomous units that merely talk to one another across local divides, but that cannot hold each other accountable to some broader formative molding of the self and its assertions; or we can choose some kind of structure that can uphold dispersed accountability, where truth is bound to a way of life and to the persuasive moral framework of accountable actions. I would obviously argue for the last option as our calling as well. One can see that the Covenant proposal that was presented to the Primates in Dar es Salaam, and through them to the Communion at large, takes this last road. (And the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar falls squarely within this perspective.) One need only look at the current debate over human rights in Nigeria, and the Church’s proper duties within this debate, to realize that unless Christian Communion is able to bring its formative weight to bear upon these matters, the process of democratization will indeed become a weapon in the hand of forces whose destiny will simply be the re-expression of Cain and Abel’s long-standing conflict, where power means simply giving each brother a chance to have his say and do his thing, with whatever results.

In sum, I invite us to see the relationship of Communion to democratization in a special way: as the embodied work of transfiguring the violence inherent in the dispersal of power. We are aware of what this means Scripturally, if nothing else: it is, in the terms of Ephesians 2, the breaking down of a “wall” of separation, and of making what were once “two” hostile and estranged bodies, “one” body in the “one new man” who is Christ. But this reality, as Paul emphasized, is achieved through the Cross and the shedding of blood, Jesus’ own. Not surprisingly, Paul is here speaking of an act by which violence itself is exposed before the world to be seen for what it is, and then comprehended within the being and heart of God. If power is dispersed in this context, it is also given over to God, who bears its chaotic assertion. Only here is the seeming contradiction of Galatians 6, where each is accountable only for his or her own actions yet is also called to bear the burdens of others, resolved. If we are to think of Communion, it is from this base, and in the context of those seeking to see such a foundation exposed before the world. The buzz-words of “mutual accountability” and “interdependence”, so important to the Windsor Report, yet based on a long tradition of discussion dating to the 1960’s at least, are not mere jargon in this light. They go to the center of the Gospel’s particular summons to this age. And so I have no hesitation in commending this vision of Anglicanism. There are few gifts more filled with promise that God has given his people in this regard for the service of the nations, at this point in history most especially.

As a gift to the American church in particular, it poses an enormous challenge. We are loath to admit that pure autonomy embodies the violence of death. And few of us, in any context, are ready to admit that the death of self leads to the resurrection of the self’s life as a common life. Yet in such an admission lies the promise of God’s peace.

Read it all.