One of CEEC’s tasks, prompted by “Guarding the Deposit”, is to consider together the various ways evangelicals will respond to this situation and how the wider church might face the reality of our diversity over human sexuality. “Guarding the Deposit” outlines three broad ways the church might act in 2017 and beyond.

Its hope is that the Church of England will maintain its current teaching and practice as the 2007 Synod committed us to do. Alternatively there may be a full acceptance of same-sex relationships as in a few other Anglican provinces. This would undoubtedly lead to major division within the CofE and the destruction of the Anglican Communion in its current form. There may therefore be an attempt ”“ as in the Pilling Report ”“ to offer some form of supposed via media with official permission for marking of same-sex relationships.

But, as “Guarding the Deposit” argues, this too would both represent a departure from apostolicity and lead to continuing conflict. It would therefore require some form of agreed visible differentiation and structural separation within the Church of England (and wider Communion).

Read it all.

Fortunately, there is a way of clearing all of this up that doesn’t require consulting dead authors, or piling excerpts atop of one another and defending one’s interpretation of each dash and comma. We can ask the Archbishop of Canterbury how he interprets the document. He has actually weighed in on this issue, but in a way that I found confusing. Kendall quotes a fragment of the sentence that he spoke on this topic, but here is the whole thing:

“We have asked for more clarity as to whether a moratorium has indeed been agreed on the election of bishops in active sexual partnerships outside marriage; and we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings (the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward.”

To my mind, the language about “licensing any kind of liturgical order” clearly supports the interpretation I have been advancing. But, I have to concede that the language in parenthesis “comprehensive abstention from any public rites” brings us back, at least, to the ambiguity of square one. The blessing of same sex unions in this country almost never involves a licensed rite. But the ceremonies are hardly private.
We can attempt to divine Williams’ intention by citing eight other instances in which he used the comprehensive, and tracing the history of the use of the word “public” since Lancelot Andrewes, but a simple statement of his position would be much more persuasive. At least two reporters that I am aware of have asked for clarification, but Lambeth Palace has yet to respond.

Read it carefully and read it all (and if you are up for it read the comments). It is a very useful reminder of where things were and sheds much light on Anglican affairs today.

Kendall Harmon”“Reflections on the Significance of the Dar es Salaam Primates Communique (I): Closing the Jim Naughton-Bishop Sisk Loophole

A week ago Monday, in an interchange with USA Today, I wrote this:

”¦the American church has turned weaseling out of what words mean into a high art form and that may still be an issue”¦.
Well, soon thereafter the weaseling began. It was very fast.

Here is Jim Naughton:

Note that some papers are buying the “ban” blessings line of thinking, and others understand that we are being asked to refrain from authorizing Rites of Blessings. The difference is signficant, but I am having an awfully hard time explaining it to people. In an nutshell, you don’t need an authorized rite to bless a union. Priests have been blessing unions without authorized rites for three decades. So we can continue that practice without running afoul of the communique.
Says me, anyway.
And seemingly singing from the same song sheet, Bishop Mark Sisk has this to say in the New York Times:
Some liberals yesterday were latching on to what they saw as a loophole because the wording specified that the bishops would not “authorize” rites. There are many bishops who have not formally authorized ceremonial rites for gay unions, but who nevertheless allow priests to perform them. If this is all the communiqué is requiring, they suggested, the Episcopal Church can live with that.
“Blessings happen, sure,” said Bishop Sisk of New York. “But I didn’t authorize them.”
The Episcope blog is playing the same game (in responding to a Time story):
”¦.The communique from Dar es Salaam says nothing about “officiating at gay commitment ceremonies and ordaining gay clergy.” It asks that “the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention.”
Tragically, the Presiding Bishop herself is trying the same tack in her remarks to the church center staff.
We have seen this movie before. Many times.
Recall, for example, Resolution C051 from the General Convention of 2003:
Resolution Number: 2003-C051
Title: Consider Blessing Committed, Same-Gender Relationships
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm the following:
1. That our life together as a community of faith is grounded in the saving work of Jesus Christ and expressed in the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: Holy Scripture, the historic Creeds of the Church, the two dominical Sacraments, and the Historic Episcopate.
2. That we reaffirm Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention (1976) that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.”
3. That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
4. That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that “We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God,” and that such relationships exist throughout the church.
5. That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
6. That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop, of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.
7. That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.
8. That it is a matter of faith that our Lord longs for our unity as his disciples, and for us this entails living within the boundaries of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. We believe this discipline expresses faithfulness to our polity and that it will facilitate the conversation we seek, not only in The Episcopal Church, but also in the wider Anglican Communion and beyond.
C051 passed with some difficulty in the House of Deputies in 2003, and then came to the House of Bishops, where Bishop Peter Lee of Virginia hailed it as a marvelous compromise. Of course, its meaning all comes down to the phrase in section 5 where is says “That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.” Does recognize mean in any way legitimize or authorize? Is the language descriptive or prescriptive?
The debate in the House of Bishops ended with a voice vote and much confusion as to what exactly was going on. To give some notion of the degree of confusion, a number of reasserting bishops voted FOR the resolution. I encountered one in the hall immediately after the session ended. When we met, he was beaming about how good the resolution was. When he said what he thought what he was doing, I observed to him that it was not the interpretation that was going to be given by most others. He had never thought of it in any other fashion. To him, he meant “I recognize it is occurring but it shouldn’t be.” Right at that moment a number of spokespersons for Integrity, the lobby promoting the acceptance of same sex bahvior in the Episcopal Church, were announcing a huge victory to the media.
The next morning in the news conference there was a very entertaining exchange between Bishop Mark Sisk of New York and Monica Davey, the reporter for the New York Times covering the 2003 General Convention. “Recognize does not mean authorize,” Bishop Sisk was insisting. Ah. But that didn’t satisfy Ms. Davey. Were there same sex blessings going on in the Diocese of New York, she asked. Indeed, Bishop Sisk said. Was he aware of them. Yes came the bishops response. Did he encourage those who wanted to do them, Ms. Davey wanted to know. The Bishop demurred. So what is the difference between that and authorization, she asked. The Bishop smiled a wry smile and then looked down and didn’t answer, seemingly as if a secret door in his desk had been exposed.
Now fast forward ahead to the BBC Sunday programme on February 25, 2007, in which Bishop Mark Sisk was interviewed:
BBC Well, the primates at their meeting put an end stop to this. By September 30, they said, your church has to promise not to allow clerics in same sex relationships to become bishops. Can your church agree to that?
+MS : I am not sure at all that I agree that that is the question put to us. It seems to me that what they were asking for was a clarification of actions taken at our General Conventions. It seems to me that one of the perhaps major challenges is to clarify what in fact was done and I believe that what in fact was done was a positive response to the request that we have in effect a moratorium on the consecration of bishops that are in same-sex unions.
BBC: Will you cease to authorise blessings or ensure that in the future you do not authorise blessings for same-sex couples?
+MS One of the misconceptions is that such blessings have been authorised. In fact they were not authorised. That was recognised by the committee that received the report from the actions of General Convention.
BBC : But they are taking place in your church. Clearly what most of the Anglican Primates want you to do is stop such blessings. Do you think your church will be prepared to do that?
+MS I do not believe that that is clearly what is being asked. The statements that were continually we being made were “Will you refrain from authorising?” We clearly decided at our last General Convention not to authorise such actions.
BBC: But not to stop them.
+MS: We were not asked to stop them by the Windsor Report, as it was presented to the Primates, as it was received by the ACC, none of them asked us to not allow blessings, they asked us not to authorise them and we do not.
BBC: Some people will think this is like discussing the number of angels on a pin”¦.
Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of “process” which so dominates the upper echelons of the leadership life of the Episcopal Church. If words COULD be interpreted in a way that does not favor the leadership’s goals, they are not, but when the wording does, they are interpeted that way, restrictively. There is some talk that this whole conflict and crisis among Anglicans is all about power, and it is not primarily about power, actually, but about truth and other things. Yet power plays a role, it is just that TEC leadership does not do much self-criticism about how they exercise their own power. Words mean what those in leadership in TEC want them to mean in too many instances. One wishes there would be some self-scrutiny on such matters because the implications would be considerable. The lack of honesty in this church in some matters has become intolerable. People are saying one thing and doing another and using words to mislead others into thinking they are not doing what in fact they are doing.
Now move from the General Convention of 2003 and resolution C051 to the Windsor Report. I quote from section D:
144. While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.
145. We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. Such a process of study and reflection needs to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. This call for continuing study does not imply approval of such proposals.
146. We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion.
Here again we are dealing with that word “authorise” and what are called public rites. Jim Naughton used the same interpretation he is using now”“saying that somehow pastoral practices which do not involve authorized rites are allowed which do in fact allow for the blessing of same sex unions”“ with the Windsor Report.
I do not believe this is a legitimate interpretation of the Windsor Report:
..it will not do to say that because the language speaks of “official liturgies” it does not apply to the Episcopal Church, whereas numerous diocesan practices, whether same sex blessings in house or private same gender partnership celebrations are not in view. The Windsor Report focused on official liturgies for two reasons: because as Anglicans we pray and live out in liturgy what we believe, and so if there is a theological change there will necessarily follow a liturgical change, and, secondly, because the specific instance the Windsor Report was addressing in New Westminster had to do with official liturgies. But the key point as addressed in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 is the practice, in whatever worship or setting, and these blessings have not ceased, they have continued, to the shock and shame of The Episcopal Church’s sisters and brothers around the Anglican world.
However, the degree to which the Windsor Report was understood to be based on Lambeth 1998 1.10 was not sufficiently emphasized in the report, and in the extreme there was a way to try to take this point of view, even though I do not believe it was the way the majority of the Lambeth Commission members understood it, nor the way the majority of Anglicans around the world would read it.
The American member of the Lambeth Commission, Bishop Mark Dyer, did in fact take that point of view:
The same-sex blessings if public-again underlined-we talk about the public expression of same-sex blessings. Namely, in New Westminster, Canada, where the bishop is directly involved in the approval of the Book of Prayer that has same-sex blessings. We are not talking in this document about pastoral provisions that local priests make in pastoral situations within the diocese-within the parishes of that diocese. We are not talking about them.
Here we reach another place of cultural distance between the common life of the Episcopal Church and that of many other Anglican Communion member provinces which must be mentioned. In our week to week worship in this province, there is confusion which in some cases approaches chaos, and which in a few instances even borders on near anarchy, in terms of what kind of local practices actually occur as compared to what the diocesan bishop has “authorized” so as to permit their occurrence or indeed even knows that they are occurring at all.. Parishes rewrite the creeds (altering some words), they use liturgies for which they do not have permission (some of them quite bizarre indeed), and in an increasing number of cases they practice the communion of the unbaptized which is not only contrary to early Christian practice it is explicitly against the canons.
Now of course around the Anglican Communion there is a breadth of local practices as ministers seek to express the gospel appropriately so that its truth may be heard in their particular context. But it must be said that in most parts of the Anglican Communion, it is not conceivable that a significant pastoral practice could occur at the local level without a key authority’s knowledge and permission. I simply do not believe that most Anglicans could believe that something like the communion of the unbaptized would be occurring in various parishes throughout their province without a common discussion about it and perhaps a Synodical decision about it”“but at least the Bishop’s permission for it or allowance of it. Most provinces could not imagine any other kind of significant pastoral event that was not authorized in that sense.
To pick but one example, consider the statement from the Bishop of New Hampshire in 1996 on the bless of same sex unions in that diocese:
A number of inquiries have been made concerning the position of the Bishop of New Hampshire on the blessing of same-sex unions. In response to those questions, the following reflections and guidelines are offered to the clergy of the diocese.
The Book of Common Prayer makes no position for the blessing of same-sex unions. The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage, The Blessing of a Civil Marriage and An Order for Marriage in The Book of Common Prayer are clearly intended for heterosexual unions and are, therefore, not appropriate for use in blessing homosexual relationships, although they may serve as models for the development of such ceremonies and portions of them may be adapted for that purpose. Likewise, the Order for the Blessing of a Home in The Book of Occasional Services is not intended for the blessing of personal unions or partnerships, but it may serve that purpose with little or no adaptation.
Until such time as the Standing Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Church may, with the consent of the General Convention, offer trial or permanent ceremonies for this purpose, clergy planning to provide such blessings will have to improvise appropriate ceremonies (my emphasis).
Does anyone really believe that in most Anglican provinces such improvisation would be conceivable?
Ah, but this is the Alice in Wonderland world of TEC. Stay with me and consider the slippery linguistic possibilities all of which arise around the word “authorized.” Authorized in the common life of the Episcopal Church could mean (a) authorized = established an official form of words, or (b) authorized = a bishop saying “OK, go ahead locally and do something,” or (c) a bishop knows that such practices are going on, the bishop was never asked about doing them (and never themselves asked whether they were occurring and why when they knew the answers to both questions), but nevertheless with the knowledge that they are occurring does nothing to stop them.
All of this brings us now to the Tanzania Primates Communique, where some TEC leaders are trying a similar legerdemain with the language in reference to same sex blessings. Read in context as a whole document, there is simply no way that this Communique allows for the Sisk/Naughton interpretation.
Why? First, because of the explicit language of parapgraph 21:
21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
The key phrase here is “local pastoral provision” which is mentioned twice. The concern of the primates was the practice of the Episcopal Church to say one thing and do another. Therefore, whether there was a national rite or not (which there isn’t), there are diocesan rites or suggested forms (as for example in the diocese of Vermont), and there are dioceses which do not have any “official” diocesan liturgy but where parishes do same sex blessings, whether in a home or a parish. One example of the latter would be the diocese of Los Angeles in which All Saint Pasadena does same sex blessings. Another would be the diocese of California where according to an article posted below, these blessings have been taking place for 30 years.
Second, because of the language used in the “On Clarifying the Response to Windsor” subsection of the Communique appendix:
In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144)
What is important here is the key phrase “in their dioceses OR through General Convention,” showing again that they have local pastoral provision at a diocesan level in mind. Paragraph 21 in the body of the Communique provides the context for this call for a covenant.
The third reason is because of the explicit way that the Communique underscores Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 as the standard for the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. Can you guess how many times Lambeth 1998 1.10 is referenced in this document? Six! It could not be more clear. That crucially important resolution reads:
Lambeth Conference 1998: Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality
This Conference:
1 commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;
2 in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
3 recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
4 while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
5 cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
6 requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
7 notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process.
The key language in this resolution may be found here: Lambeth “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions.” Anglican practice needs to be in accord with anglican teaching. Therefore, there can be no pastoral practice in a local setting which either is or is seen to be somehow “legitimising or blessing”¦same sex unions.” And this means that local blessings, whether in houses or churches or wherever, and whether they have official sanctioned liturgies or not, cannot be done, if they are of non-celibate same sex couples.
Lest there be any doubt about this, the Archbishop of Canterbury said at the concluding press conference of the Tanzania primates meeting:
The teaching of the Anglican Church remains that homosexual activity is not compatible with scripture.
That is the standard, and there can be no “local provision” which is in conflict with it, since Anglican practice is to be in accord with Anglican teaching. The primates are calling the Episcopal Church to stop all local practices not in accordance with this standard. No other reading of the Communique as a whole and in context is possible. The Primate of the Southern Cone has already underscored this in response to the Presiding Bishop and even the Archbishop of Centerbury took the unusual step of issuing clarifying language yesterday in his General Synod Presidential address:
the understanding of the [Primates] Meeting was certainly that this [call for a moratorium to TEC] should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites”¦
Now a number of things need to be said in conclusion. It cannot be emphasized enough that this language of Lambeth 1998 1.10 resolution also needs to be heeded, when they call “on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex.”
There needs to be great pastoral provision made with the utmost compassion in this area, and the church has a long way to go. I have said many times how sad I am that people who identify themsleves as gay or lesbian do not feel welcome in churches, and it is a tragedy. We can and must do better.
Also, IF Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 is the standard for Anglicans, it leaves a whole lot of questions unresolved. I realize that. But as I have said again and again the key call to the Episcopal Church is to stop doing what we have been doing so as to create the space necessary for real reconciliation. Questions about other implications are for the future, and without the cessation the Primates call for there can be no joint future between TEC and the Anglican Communion.
I want further to make a plea specifically to Jim Naughton, since I feel I can talk to Jim and try to be heard (alas an increasing rarity in the deteriorating climate in the Episcopal Church at present).
First, I want to ask whether you realize how ethnocentric your reading of the communique is. It sounds like it comes from the country where apostolic leaders act like lawyers. Are we not called as Anglicans to ask what others would think? Do you really believe that your reading of the Communique is the way an African or Southeast Asian Primate would intend it? Is there even a way to write the communique as Greg Venables thinks it should be read and that you would read as Archbishop Venables intends that would make sense in the language of most of the other parts of the world?
Second, I want to plead with you to consider that the Anglican Communion is not something to be trifled with as if it were some kind of a game, as if it all came down to what the meaing of the word is is. Should not the thing to do in this instance be to bend over backwards to give the most globally Anglican interpretation of the document? It is not a small thing that the third largest Christian family in the world may break up. I pray it does not. And I especially pray if it does break up it will not be because we tried to find loopholes but instead that we tried as hard as we could to be honest with one another and heard what others were saying to us in their terms”“KSH.

Update”“Ruth Gledhill comments on the above as follows:
The sad irony of course, for all of us in England, is that this ”˜blessing without authorising’ is what has been going on here for years, if not decades. It is just not ”˜official’, rarely discussed outside closed doors, and certainly not adopted openly as policy! If TEC tries this and doesn’t get away with it, then CofE is definitely in trouble, I’ld say. TEC might have managed it if they had kept schtum and just gone ahead and done it like us, but I think things are looking pretty bleak now. The stable door is open, the horse has bolted. As Shaw said, we really are two countries divided by the same language. And now by the same theologies

In the summer, and after a year’s delay, Bloomsbury published That Was the Church That Was by Andrew Brown and Linda Woodhead. Woodhead is professor of sociology of religion at the University of Lancaster, and Brown has been a religious correspondent for a national newspaper for many years. So you might expect them both to know what they are talking about when it comes to the Church of England. But the review by Edward Lucas in The Times sets out how much an explanation is needed of recent decline in church attendance””and how signally this book fails to offer it:

It deserves a definitive book, explaining how a mighty, self-confident and global institution, with centuries-old roots and run by kind, intelligent and hard-working people, was shunted to the sidelines of national life in less than a generation. Andrew Brown and Linda Woodhead have failed to do that. Despite flashes of insight and some vivid writing, their book is lazy, spiteful and meandering.

I was keen to read the book for myself to see whether this withering assessment was deserved, or whether it reflected the interests and concerns of the reviewer. Sadly it was the former.

Read it all.

Watch and listen to it all.

If we look at the crisis of faith and order within the Anglican Communion, it’s not only bishops that are at fault. In the last 20 years, the Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to address the problems and even made things worse.

The leading bishops of the Communion of Anglican Churches, the Primates, tried to take action in 2007 and recently in January, but were stymied both times as we noted here. In their last “official” meeting in 2008, the Primates barely mustered a quorum for an insipid statement about their gathering for fellowship and prayer only””leading some to wonder why they meet at all. We were present at the Anglican Consultative Council Meetings in 2009 where we watched ACC-14 fatally weaken the proposed “Anglican Communion Covenant” through parliamentary sleight of hand, and in 2012 at ACC-15 where they refused to take any action on the Covenant. We have documented how in less than four months ACC-16 in Lusaka overturned the will of the Primates “gathering” in January. Yes, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops meeting in 1998 produced an exceptionally clear statement on Biblical, and therefore Anglican, teaching on human sexuality, marriage and qualifications for ordained leadership within the Church, in its Resolution I.10. But Lambeth 2008 “Indaba’d” the statement to death through facilitated discussions without any action””and minus almost 300 bishops who boycotted due to the presence of The Episcopal Church’s bishops.

If this isn’t “exigent circumstances” – if these facts do not add up to emergency conditions by virtue of massive structural failure and paralysis – what more could we possibly need to follow the historical precedent of the catholic conciliarists? What more do we need to call a general council of the Communion to replace its failed structures? The situation in fact is so bad that, as others have observed, it has descended from the ridiculous to the absurd.

Like the Church in the Middle Ages, the current structures of the Churches in the Anglican Communion are incapable of healing the wound to Anglican faith and order.

Read it all.

Concluding his own polite but critical review of “That was the Church that was”, theologian Andrew Goddard makes the following assessment:

“The key question the book raises for me is in what sense, if any, those committed to two such contrasting understandings of the church can genuinely walk together in the same institutional structure. Might it not be the case that, if either is to flourish, each needs to grant the other a distinct ecclesial space and identity to pursue two very different, probably irreconcilable, visions of”¦the church”¦”

This is significant, because Andrew Goddard has for many years been at the forefront of influential leaders within the C of E who hold to an orthodox evangelical understanding of Christian faith (particularly in regard to sexual ethics), but who support solutions to the problems of disagreements over doctrine and ethics based on institutional unity rather than confessional separation. So for example, Goddard was one of the leading advocates for an “Anglican Covenant” and always opposed GAFCON, saying that it was contributing to the divisions in the Anglican communion.
More recently, Goddard has been a supporter of Archbishop Welby’s “good disagreement” policy; he was one of the first to convene a day of discussions on sexuality between revisionists and conservatives before the official “Shared Conversations” began; and co-edited a book of essays exploring how “grace and truth” can be maintained together in a divided church.

Archbishop Justin Welby has said many times that the unity of the church is a given, and no-one has the right to “chuck out” those family members with whom one disagrees. Goddard’s article says clearly, contra Welby,

Read it all.

Our African churches can never be social progressives in the sense beloved of the West. We will never allow our churches to be taken over by views and programmes which suggest that the Bible is wrong. We will not crumble or bow the knee to a godless secular culture that despises the Bible and what it teaches.

Actually, our African churches are already progressives. We are seeking to live our lives in accordance with the will of God in the kingdom of God, which is the real future for humanity that measures all human progress. And that kingdom is marked here on earth by the priority it gives to the poor in the ministry of the gospel and the concerns of the people of God.

We will never allow ourselves, or our identity, or our churches, to be defined by the pride of those who see us as lagging behind them in our economies, our politics, our communities, our families, and our theology.

I have to confess to you that I am deeply disturbed by some of what is happening in the Communion and its churches today. I have seen Anglicans who are poor and marginalized in their own societies plead for their right to maintain Anglican orthodoxy in their own churches, only to be swept aside by a campaign to change the churches’ teaching on marriage and so-called rights of equality. This is something I take to the Lord in prayer again and again. So as we meet, what can CAPA offer the African Anglican churches today?

Read it all (my emphasis).

..I said that I would speculate as to the reasons why congregations willfully choose revisionist priests, and while there may not be one unifying cause, let me suggest that people cannot know what they should look for, or look out for, in a religious leader if they have not studied the mistakes of the past as recorded for us in the Bible and in the history of the Church. Generations of American Episcopalians have not been grounded in Bible study or in the study of Church history and doctrine, and therefore are no longer capable of making choices that are truly Spirit led.

In addition, when the list of candidates is supplied by a “Canon for This and That” from the revisionist diocese headquarters, it tends to boil down to a Hobson’s Choice.

It becomes a death spiral for the denomination when the keys to the Church are handed over to revisionist bishops and priests time and time again who ensure that the fundamentals of Christianity are not taught to future generations. Those future generation of blissfully ignorant pewsitters will continue to make poor choices, and as long as there are enough of them to pay the bills, the church will stagger on…

…to its doom.

Read it all

Despite past history the GAFCON Primates decided to attend the January meeting. They demonstrated a love for the unity of the Communion but on a basis of common faith. They have not yet given up on the Communion. But ACC’s actions so far confirm their suspicions that they are being misled and manipulated and even an orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury cannot stop it.

How can ACC not accept the Primates’ decision? Why is it arrogating such roles to itself? Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda are right in drawing a firm line on the sand. Their approach is principled, not managerial or political.

Politically, TEC holds powerful cards ”“ money, power, access, communication, control of the media and leverage. But did TEC accept the Primates decision in January in the light of what they look on as a replay in Lusaka?

Read it all.

What you and I believe really matters! As we read I Corinthians 15, our class realized that what Paul believed gave him the courage and confidence to face savage opposition, relentless persecution and even death itself. The same is true today. Christians who believe that Jesus rose from the dead and raises us with Him have that same confidence and courage to face deprivations of all kind, persecution, and even death.

What we believe””or refuse to believe””is at the heart of the crisis within Anglicanism today. Everybody thinks the issues we face are about sex. But as has been demonstrated “sex” is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the tip of the iceberg that gets all the attention, we see huge challenges to faith that really matter. Beneath the surface of that iceberg we see a direct challenge to the Biblical doctrines of Creation (what God defines as “good”), marriage, the authority of the Scriptures, who gets to make decisions in the Church about what we believe and, ultimately, the message of Christ’s Gospel itself (is Jesus saying “come as you are and stay as you are” or “Come as you are and let me change you from the inside out so that you find your identity in ME alone”?).

Read it all.

Memories of this paternalistic and monochrome view of Africa returned as I observed the response of some members of the Episcopal Church to the recent meeting of the Primates. I have listened as we lambasted “the Africans” as if they form one country that spoke one language and shared one view of the world: apparently, uninformed bigotry.[1] We have pretended that they are not a multi-cultural continent with the same mix of good and bad that is indicative of all societies. I must say this as plainly as possible: If Korea, Japan, India, and China shared a similar view on human sexuality would we blame ”” implicitly and explicitly ”” “Asian” culture? Would we speak about them as a monolith? Would we assume that they are unthinking and “behind” America and the West? This smacks of cultural imperialism. It is cultural imperialism.

Western Anglican media coverage of Africa often follows a familiar pattern. The coverage of non-Western Anglicans usually focuses on economic development, especially the work of Western companion dioceses in the third world. The subtle message is clear: theology is for the West; the Global South receives our aid. Thus, when the Anglican Communion does gather to discuss issues of theology and Africans repeat the official teaching of the Communion and the teaching of the vast majority of Christians everywhere, they are rebuked for taking the focus away from the common mission (of African economic development) that unites the Communion. We seem to be confused as to how those Africans would dare do this after we have spent the last thirty years congratulating ourselves for granting the aid that we have made the basis of our common life. We cannot understand why they would be so divisive and on the wrong side of our definition of justice.

Read it all from Esau McCaulley.

[Journalists] haven’t noticed that the Anglican Communion has already shattered to pieces and can no longer be described as a ”˜Communion’. There are still Anglican Churches and there are still relationships, but the truth is that there is no longer an interchangeable ministry, intercommunion and common prayer.

Even more importantly, there are no longer any regular meetings of the Communion nor any structures of Communion that carry any confidence. The Primates’ meeting has not met since 2011. The 2018 Lambeth Conference has been postponed, and at least a third of the Primates failed to show up for the 2008 Conference when they found they were to be subjected to endless exercises in so-called ”˜Indaba’ ”“ a supposedly African tribal form of talking through differences.

The remedies that Archbishop Rowan Williams attempted to put in place to deal with the problem of Anglican fragmentation in the wake of the Gene Robinson controversy ”“ including the Panel of Reference, the Windsor Report, the short-lived exclusion of the Americans and Canadians from the Anglican structures and the now-forgotten ”˜Anglican Covenant’ ”” had failed.

Read it all.

The old saw about the Communion used to go something like this: “The Africans pray, the Americans pay, and the British make the rules.” It now appears that the British alone no longer make the rules, and that the Americans are already not paying as much as they did before. (The Africans, it may safely be said, have never stopped praying.) The latest statement from the Anglican Communion Office shows (see the last page of the link) that ECUSA has paid through 2014 less than half of what was requested (£204,772 of £538,280). Thus the withdrawal of all funds by ECUSA may turn out not to be the decisive step that many Episcopalians conceive it to be.

What is certain is that in three years, the Anglican Communion will not be what it is now, nor anything like what it was in 2003: the Episcopal Church (USA) has already seen to that. If the recent sanctions provoke ECUSA to amend the Preamble to its Constitution, and to cease proclaiming itself as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion”, both the Communion and ECUSA would be the better for it.

ECUSA as a former Anglican province has long since decided to walk apart from its fellow Anglican provinces, in its single-minded elevation of human justice over God’s justice as expressed in unequivocal Holy Scriptures. It is time to stop the pretense that it remains willing to be “in communion” with the See of Canterbury — at least, so long as Canterbury remains faithful to Lambeth 1.10, and especially if ECUSA withdraws its financial support (as, in all honesty, it should once it withdraws its membership). Let it find its new communion partners among those who likewise think the Holy Spirit is doing a “new thing” among them, and let the test of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-39) decide who, ultimately, is in the right.

Read it all.

Take the time to watch and listen to it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has convened a meeting of leaders of all the Anglican Churches across the globe in an attempt to find common ground on which to base the continuation of the Anglican Communion. It is well worth fighting for; his bold initiative is timely. As an expression of Christian solidarity between Churches of the Western world and sister Churches in developing nations, the Anglican Communion has an exceptional record. The present threat to its existence has to be addressed, otherwise it could fall apart.

Yet the structures designed to hold it together can no longer bear the weight put on them. Attitudes to homosexuality have become the critical turning point. The tensions arise from the conservative standards of biblical orthodoxy applied by some of the increasingly assertive Anglican Churches in Africa and Asia, compared with the more liberal versions of Anglicanism reflected in church policy and practice in other parts.

Read it all (requires subscription).

I think it’s quite evident what is at stake in this meeting: Will we have an Anglican Communion or an Anglican “Federation?”

One choice is for Anglican Churches within a Communion to find their unity in a common confession of faith and order-with “essentials” they can readily recognize in each other””plus relational commitments to strengthen and guard that communion and a commitment to a common good in and for the Church. Perhaps we could even find a scripture for that “common good”-perhaps something like Philippians 2:5 “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus”¦” A “Communion” with a commitment to having the mind of Christ in the mind of the Church.

The other choice is for a “Federation” of Anglican Churches who may have nothing theologically in common. They may be in impaired or even broken “communion” with each other, but will still share one thing: they will be in relationship with the See of Canterbury. “Aides” of the Archbishop of Canterbury have been quoted as likening this to having members of one family “living in separate bedrooms” and maybe not even talking to each other. But as long as they are ALL talking to “papa”””presumably the Archbishop of Canterbury””it’s ok to live with such loosened ties.

Read it all.

Watch and listen to it all.

I would put it this way: corruption involves, not restriction of voice in general, but its illegitimate restriction, defined in terms of the rules of a given game. When those rules are established and accepted, then the issue of “voice” becomes less problematic: bowling clubs are not acting illegitimately when they restrict their membership to bowlers, rather than opening it up to ping-pong players. Similarly, churches are not acting illegitimately, and therefore are not restricting voice, when they limit ordination to baptized and believing Christians. Thus, the inevitable question of whether “orthodoxy” should restrict the voices of the “unorthodox” must be answered as both “yes” and “no.” “Yes,” if this restriction is built into the canonical structures of the church in question; “no”, if these restrictions derive from structures that are extra-canonically constrained by manipulations of influence. For when there is canonical space for diverse embodiments of, e.g. theological positions in a church, as in both “evangelical” and “catholic” views within the older Anglican ecclesial structures, engaging the Influence Market in a way that restricts those voices becomes a matter of corruption.

This can arguably be shown with the Episcopal Church (TEC): what was once a relatively theologically diverse church, within the limits of its formularies, has become one of the most theologically monochromatic churches in America. This has happened through the ever more deeply engaged Influence Market. On the one hand, there has been nothing “illegal” about the outworking of that market: bishops can ordain whom they wish and appointments can be made according to personal preferences of those in power. But the end result of caving into, let alone deliberately manipulating, these dynamics is corruption, and on two scores.

First, through the suppression of legitimate voices in the Church, it is inevitable that the truth ”” in this case, the truth of the Gospel ”” suffers, simply for lack of adequately trained hearts and minds to engage that truth. More corruption follows, through the perversion of critical Christian inquiry. Second, when Influence Markets such as TEC’s are moving ahead at full steam, it is inevitable that more concrete and classical acts of corruption take place: misuse of funds and misuse of canons (the church’s legal process). In an institution where everybody is “on the same side” (because there are few left on any other side), no one wishes to hurt their “friends” by raising questions. This has happened on a number of fronts in TEC in matters involving the national budget (e.g. misusing trust funds to balance the bottom line), discipline (manipulating canons to silence dissenting voices), and the legislative process (not following canonical procedures at General Convention). It represents a matter of corruption, at least in Johnston’s paradigm, where the “legal” Influence Market has finally given way to quite “illegal” activities.

Read it all from the Living Church’s Covenant blog (emphasis his).

The gulf is widening among the world’s 80 million Anglicans and now the Archbishop of Canterbury has called a summit of church leaders to work out a new way of running the divided church.

Archbishop Justin Welby has asked Anglican primates from each major region to meet in London in January 2016.

He will discuss religiously motivated violence and the protection of children. But it’s the issue of sexuality and same-sex relationships that’s most divisive.

Is Archbishop Welby trying to achieve the impossible””satisfying the demands of liberal and conservative Anglicans for a church that’s totally inclusive or Biblically conservative? The Rev Dr Stephen Burns, associate dean of Trinity College Theological School in Melbourne and an expert in the worldwide Anglican communion, discusses the dilemma.

Listen to it all.

They’ll be discussing what unites them and what divides them; whether the Communion ought to continue as it is presently modelled, and whether the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to change. There will be no ”˜Continuing Indaba”˜ for the pursuit of “cultural models of consensus”, and no meditation on the mission of “mutual creative action”. The days of fudge, patch and hedge are over ”“ unless, of course, all the gathered Archbishops, Presiding Bishops and Chief Pastors determine to ignore the pleas and prayers of the Primus inter Pares.

But (and it’s a very, very interesting ”˜but’), Justin Welby has not only invited the 37 recognised primates of the Wordwide Anglican Communion: according to Lambeth Palace (..and here’s the Guardian headline..) he has also written a letter to Foley Beach. That isn’t a cruise-ship resort in sunny Florida: The Most Rev’d Dr Foley Beach is Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which split from The Episcopal Church (TEC) when The Most Rev’d Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori set her face against social conservatism and theological orthodoxy on matters relating to gender and sexuality. The letter of invitation to Archbishop Foley is significant because ACNA is not a recognised member of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (according to the traditional instruments of communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury).

Yet what credible discussions may take place if he is snubbed, since ACNA is affirmed and recognised by other Anglican provinces, in particular those belonging to GAFCON?

There are clearly provincial fractures and parallel churches already operating throughout the Communion.

Read it all.

A new message is being hinted at to orthodox Christians by the secular state: get with the programme, or we will treat you as extremists.

Thirdly, the episode is an example of revisionist episcopal hypocrisy. David Walker (whose views are well known) claimed on one hand that the “gay” issue was not going to split the church, and that unity in the Anglican Communion was his priority. But then he joined in an attack on the Church of Uganda using false information. If his aim is unity, this will surely have the opposite effect ”“ unless of course he thinks he can bully African churches into following his revisionist views, and creating ”˜unity’ that way? Rather than discuss the theological issues behind the fracture in the Communion, the Bishop of Manchester chose to use the radio interview to solicit support from the secular liberal audience for his own brand of Christianity, by demonizing African Anglicans and so further hardening the divisions in the Communion. To what extent does this reflect his own view, or part of a more organized policy?

We are seeing a combination of spin, intimidation and hypocrisy as revisionist church leaders join with the secular media in creating distance between (in their narrative) ”˜good religion’ of liberal Western Anglicanism, and the ”˜bad religion’ of the orthodox version in the developing world. In North America the faithful confessing Anglicans have faced this, taking a public, costly stand, articulating the Bible’s clear teaching about sex, marriage and what it means to be human as part of a fully-orbed presentation of the counter cultural Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have not been ashamed of association with African Christian leaders, warmly welcoming close fellowship and even oversight from them. The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to show at the January meeting that he rejects the revisionist tactics of the BBC/Guardian/Bishop of Manchester (that is, if the GAFCON Primates accept the invitation). Otherwise English evangelical Anglicans and orthodox anglo-Catholics will need to be moving ahead organizationally along the same lines as ACNA.

Read it all and followi the links, especially noting the one to the detailed background to the situation in Uganda.

You can find the original post there and the AI post here.

The challenge to Archbishop Welby and the gathered Primates will be to find a path that will allow the greatest possible number of shattered relationships to heal, and so in time (perhaps) to move the Communion to a new consensus.

But for that to happen, the Anglican Communion Office (through both the Archbishop of Canterbury and its Secretariat) will have to distance itself further from financial and ideological dependency on ECUSA and its wealthy constituents, such as Trinity Wall Street. For too long now, from GAFCON’s point of view, the revisionists have been calling the shots, but now there are signs that they at last are weakening. That is why Archbishop Idowu-Fearon will play a key role, along with Archbishop Welby, in resolving how best to start the realignment the Communion at the upcoming Primates’ Meeting, if that process is to begin at all.

If they try to help ECUSA and ACoC retain their erstwhile roles of influence, they will hasten the eventual disintegration of the Anglican Communion. Likewise, if they listen only to the voices of modernity, according to which each church’s or denomination’s view of Scripture needs to get in step with the culture, then they will seal that disintegration, by recognizing it as a fact that has already occurred. But if they actually listen to the voices that are seeking to hold the Communion in line with its traditional understanding of Scripture””an understanding that stems from the very beginnings of the Anglican Church””they may yet hope to call a halt to the disintegration, and to lay the first firm paving-stones for a Communion that will, one day and once again, derive its strength from its collective faith in the good news of Christ crucified.

Read it all.

It was clear that all four denominations were declining, but that in Wales, Scotland and the USA the Anglican churches were declining much faster than the Church of England. Both the C in W and the SEC had potential extinction dates about 2040, with ECUSA possibly lasting 10-15 years longer. Indeed, although the Church of England is declining, it is only on the margins of extinction if the current pattern remains, thus unlikely to face extinction this century.

Rather than just repeat the standard reasons given for church decline, in the light of the contrasts in decline patterns, I would rather look at a different question: What does the Church of England have, that the other three denominations do not, that may have helped reduce the effects of numerical decline?

Here are some suggestions, not exhaustive, and some may be a bit controversial….

Read it all.

The Anglican Church, once a key institution in the English-speaking world, has suffered decline for over half a century. Although in both the UK and North America there are many examples of growing and lively Anglican churches, as national denominations the trend is downwards. This decline is in marked contrast to continued Anglican growth in Africa and other parts of the world. There the church is healthy. In the West it is sick. The question is ”“ is the Anglican sickness unto death?

In this blog I explore the different patterns of Anglican decline through four denominations: the Church of England (C of E), the Church in Wales (C in W), the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC), and the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA). The study is not perfect, nor is the data, but I hope it inspires debate and other studies. A subsequent blog will suggest possible reasons for their differences in decline.

Read it all.

So you want to bring about change but you’re afraid of the pushback that you know the change will create?

Totally understand that.

So you’re tempted to do what many leaders have done. Instead of bringing about the deep or radical change you know needs to happen, you decide to introduce change incrementally.

Rather than remove the furniture you know needs to go, you move it an inch a week, hoping nobody will notice.

Read it all

I say the distinctions are questionable: The New Testament makes no such distinction between false teaching and heresy. When the Apostle Paul tells his disciple Timothy and the various churches to which he wrote not to tolerate false teachers, he did not make a distinction as to whether their false teaching concerned a matter that would someday be included in the Nicene Creed. In fact, the admonition was often to separate from false teachers who promoted immorality (1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 6:17, Ephesians 5:3). The same is true for other apostles (2 Peter 2:1-10, Jude 3-7).

Heresy has also been defined as any departure from the faith of the Catholic Church, which Vincent of Lerins identified as that which has been believed by the whole church throughout the world, from the beginning, and by all (universality, antiquity, and the consensus of the faithful). Who can disagree that the Episcopal Church has seriously departed from the received faith of the universal and ancient church–and on a matter of ultimate importance: God’s stated will for humankind in the matter of sexual relations and God’s ordained sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

And as to remaining in communion, the New Testament makes no such stipulation. The Apostle Paul does not say, if the body with which you are associated continues in false teaching for a generation, then you (or, more likely, your children) are obliged to separate from it. No, the admonition is that those who are serious about following the way of Christ are either to expel or to separate from false teachers immediately.

Read it all.

Read it all.