These two key dimensions of our vision, however, must be carried out with Another Fundamental Dimension of our diocesan life. Our constitution reads “The Church in the Diocese of South Carolina accedes to and adopts the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church”¦.” The relationship is there””though we may understand how it needs to be carried out in different ways. Certainly many of us in this diocese, but let us remember by no means all, have been on a very different course from the policy setters at recent General Conventions. The Standing Committee and I, following the path trod by Bishops Allison and Salmon, have felt compelled on several occasions to differentiate ourselves from statements or actions of various leaders in TEC””such as compromises toward the Uniqueness of Christ; certain non-Canonical actions of the Presiding Bishop and the HOB; as well as the controversies regarding Human Sexuality. I anticipate the continued need for such differentiation in the months and years ahead.

Beyond differentiation there is important witness still left to do, and from which I believe God has not yet released us. I believe the House of Bishops, and the Executive Council, following the lead of General Convention 2006 has resisted the change that the Holy Spirit seems to be urging us toward as Anglicans””such as, the call toward a more responsible autonomy and inter-provincial accountability. Yet these bodies have fearfully protected the prior century’s polity and structure when 21st Century structures are needed. It continues to astonish me that so many leaders in our Church favor revision of our doctrinal and moral teaching and yet uphold relatively recent canons and polity with a fervor that would be admirable if held toward the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. This heel-dragging protectiveness was shown clearly in New Orleans in 2007 when the HOB refused to adopt the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam, arguing that it was contrary to the polity of our Church. The bishops were soon followed by the Executive Council, therein making it difficult if not impossible for the Presiding Bishop to follow through with the Primates’ directives. If we had received the Primates’ recommendation the four dioceses which have since left would be intact and in TEC today! Even more recently, this fear was shown afresh when individual bishops who seemingly have little respect for the Windsor Process and the Anglican Covenant accepted the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend Lambeth and then spoke against any progress towards a Covenant. They will not be able to hold back the future of global Anglicanism permanently. Either Episcopalianism will repent of its unscriptural autonomy or it will spread its splintering tendencies of the last forty years throughout the Anglican Communion.

I believe our steadfastness will be of service within TEC””if only by challenging the structural conservatism of the theological innovators to face the changes of the future. Even more importantly it will be of service for the Anglican Communion as it moves towards the emerging structures God is providentially shaping.

Read it carefully and read it all.

The primates’ letter had received the unanimous endorsement of the primates, Archbishop Williams said. However, the WCG’s communication was a report prepared by a committee appointed by Archbishop Williams and presented by him to the primates as a resource document; it was not submitted to a vote. Many parts of the communiqué refer to passages from the 17-page WCG report. Other sections of the communiqué refer to the document on gracious restraint. The sections mentioned in the communiqué indicate broader support among the primates.

This communiqué, perhaps to a more significant degree than others in recent years, attempts to look to doctrine rather than legislation or political solutions. The primates pick up a theme from the Windsor Report, which questioned whether the Communion suffered from an “ecclesial deficit, in other words, do we have the necessary theological structural and cultural foundations to sustain the life of the Communion? We need to address divisive issues in a timely and effective way, and to learn the responsibilities and obligations of interdependence.”

The Episcopal Church and the proposed Anglican Church of North America both received support, as well as pointed but fair questions about their conduct and objectives. For instance, The Episcopal Church was praised for its efforts to date to exercise “gracious restraint” in not consecrating any additional openly gay bishops. The proponents of the proposed new parallel province in North America were reassured that they were Anglican, and that they were deserving of some measure of protection from legal attacks, at least in the short term.

Read the whole thing.

This week, at their meeting in Alexandria, the primates have been debating the Covenant, a new document that is at the heart of the solution and sets out a Bible-based orthodoxy that the provinces will be invited to sign up to. Some provinces may well refuse to do so. These include Canada, where one diocese, New Westminster, has already authorised same-sex blessings, and another, Toronto, is expected to follow suit within a year.

The Episcopal Church of the US might also have difficulty giving full support to a document that does not do full justice to the ministry of clerics such as Bishop Robinson, now an establishment figure who is friendly with President Obama ”” he prayed the invocation at the start of the inauguration celebrations last month.

The result will be not schism but a two-tier communion, with all provinces in communion with the “mother church” in England and its primate, Dr Rowan Williams, primus inter pares or first among equals, but some having a lesser status and not being in full communion with each other.

At the same time the new “church” formed by conservative evangelicals in the US, led by the deposed Bishop of Pittsburgh, Bob Duncan, which is seeking recognition as a new province, is likely to be granted some extra-provincial status allowing the thousands of Anglicans it represents to remain within the Communion. This would lead to two parallel Anglican provinces operating in the US, one free to pursue its mission of inclusivity including the consecration of bishops of different sexualities, the other mandated to preach its own gospel of what it believes to be “orthodoxy”.

Read it all.

The call for an Anglican Communion Covenant resulted directly from the Windsor Report (sec. 113-120), and the Windsor Report itself was a crisis response document. It is therefore not possible or desirable to evaluate any document that emerges from a drafting process without asking the question: “Will it address the crisis facing the Communion?”

That said, the crisis has also raised issues of the identity and governance of the Anglican Communion that have lain dormant for many decades. From time to time, the Lambeth Conference began to address these issues, but more often than not it punted them further down the field. Now many of us feel that the conflicts and contradictions of Anglican identity and governance must be squarely faced. A covenant could be just the sort of document to do this. Or not.

It is my contention in this essay that the official Anglican Covenant process under the direction of Abp. Drexel Gomez will not be able to produce an adequate document to meet the requirements of the hour. In the two years since the formation of the Covenant Drafting Group in September 2006, a new team has taken the field, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Meeting in Jerusalem in June 2008, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) published a statement of identity ”“ “The Jerusalem Declaration” ”“ and formed a Primates’ Council claiming extraordinary authority to separate from a heterodox Province or to recognize an orthodox Province. It seems likely that this Council will soon recognize a North American Province separate from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

Read it all.

5. GLOBAL CONCERNS

a. As a result of a presentation of a mission survey in the Sudan we were humbled by the remarkable faith of the bishops, clergy and congregations in a country that has been devastated by war for more than two decades. We embraced the Primate’s call for a continuing Sudan Mission Initiative and as initial steps appointed the Dean, Archbishop Maxwell Anikwenwa, as the interim Sudan Mission Coordinator to work with the leadership of the Church of the Sudan so that we might discern together the next steps for this partnership. We resolved to continue the work of the Church of Nigeria Mission Society locally and in the francophone countries of West Africa including Benin Republic, Cote d’Ivore, Chad, Niger, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Mali and Togo and individual dioceses are urged to take an active role in specific projects.

b. Following the Primate’ report on the meeting of the GAFCON Primates Council with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House of Bishops, while expressing support for this effort to build bridges, stressed that in any effort to bring restoration to the Communion there can be no compromise on the need for genuine repentance by those who have walked away from the ”˜faith once delivered to the saints’. We are, however, delighted by the continuing fruit of GAFCON, the developing Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans around the world, the work of the GAFCON Primates Council and the emerging Anglican Church in North America.

Read it carefully and read it all.

…the game now is going to change from now on. The object has shifted from trying to reform the old Communion (by supplanting the liberals in the US) to forming a new one. Rowan’s task in the year ahead will thus change, too, from trying to hold together two disputatious groups in the same Church to trying to hold together two Churches. It can’t be done, especially now that he has lost the respect of the conservatives.

So, schism in 2009? It certainly looks like it, and then the numbers belonging to each side start to matter. The conservatives in the US are in a clear minority, but when allied to the millions of Anglicans in, say, Nigeria or Uganda, they become a force to reckon with, however much the liberals would like us to ignore them.

There are many things to like in this piece, but it is significantly marred by the fact that he gets wrong what happened in 2006 at the General Convention. There was no agreement on the bishops matter in the terms requested, and on blessings what was requested was clearly not agreed to. Since the Convention, there has been an increase in same sex blessings against the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion. So it is simply nonsense to talk of a moratorium being lifted which doesn’t exist in practice throughout various parts of TEC. In any event, read it all–KSH.

Over the last half-century, the American Church has become an embarrassment to the global Church. They ceased to be Anglican in any meaningful sense, or in some cases even Christian, and the rest of the Anglican world finally decided to clean house. Certain people hijacked the American Anglican “family name,” but had no real ideological connection to the historic faith.

The world is telling them to go find their own house.

Only the most narrow minded person, whose vision of Christianity is parochial enough to see the Church as primarily European and North American, could be confused about the situation. The amazing thing is how patient the global majority has been with the struggling, shrinking American church.

Global Anglicans are a tolerant group, but are finally telling the liberal interlopers to go their own way and stop pretending to be Anglican. They are reaching out to the actual Anglicans that remain in North America and are working to rebuild the American branch of the movement. Worldwide Anglicanism is trying to save the brand!

Read it all.

What about the definition of Anglican? In the October issue of First Things, I expressed the hope that last summer’s Lambeth Conference, and particularly the leadership of Archbishop Rowan Williams, gave strong evidence that the center of the Anglican communion intended to hold together; that the Episcopal left and the GAFCON right would not, in fact, carry the day and so lead the communion ever-further down the road to fragmentation and incoherence. Since that time, most of the action has been on the GAFCON and Bishop Duncan side; and the more influence they have, the less chance there is of an eventual coming-together of things.

But the ball is now in center court, as it were””this February’s meeting of the Anglican primates will be crucial, as will the meeting of the Covenant Design Group in April and the Anglican Consultative Council’s meeting in May. If Anglicanism is truly to mean something beyond the local, these meetings will carry forward the Lambeth vision of a genuinely covenanted “global” and “catholic church,” with its ministry, faith, and sacraments “united and interdependent throughout the world,” as Rowan Williams has put it.

There are, of course, no guarantees. The forces of dissolution and division right now are strong, and it is always much easier to pull apart than it is to hold together. The question “Anglican or Episcopalian?” may always be with us; but at the least, we may still be able to hope that the question “What kind of Anglican are you?” will not become just as common.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will not block the creation of a third Anglican province in North America, sources familiar with Dr. Rowan Williams’ Dec 5 meeting with five traditionalist archbishops, tell The Church of England Newspaper.

However, the archbishop will not give it his endorsement either, arguing his office does not have the legal authority to make, or un-make, Anglicans.

On Dec 5, five members of the Gafcon primates council: Archbishops Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, and Henry Orombi of Uganda met with Dr. Williams in Canterbury for approximately five hours to discuss the current state of affairs within the Communion.

In a half day meeting interspersed with prayer and lunch the archbishops had a “full and frank” discussion of the issues, sources familiar with the proceedings said. “There was no indaba-ding on Friday,” one senior Gafcon bishop told CEN, referring to the ”˜Indaba’ process of directed listening used at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. The Gafcon bishop said the conversation was a direct and forthright discussion of all of the presenting issues.

Read it all.

Five Anglican archbishops have backed the introduction of a new Anglican province in North America, a significant, though unsurprising boost for the conservative-led initiative.

“We fully support this development with our prayer and blessing,”
said the archbishops, who are called primates because they lead regional branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. “It demonstrates the determination of these faithful Christians to remain authentic Anglicans.”

Read it all.

Primates of the GAFCON Primates’ Council meeting in London have issued the following statement about the Province of the Anglican Church in North America.

We welcome the news of the North American Anglican Province in formation. We fully support this development with our prayer and blessing, since it demonstrates the determination of these faithful Christians to remain authentic Anglicans.

North American Anglicans have been tragically divided since 2003 when activities condemned by the clear teaching of Scripture and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion were publicly endorsed. This has left many Anglicans without a proper spiritual home. The steps taken to form the new Province are a necessary initiative. A new Province will draw together in unity many of those who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of God’s word, and also create the highest level of fellowship possible with the wider Anglican Communion.

Furthermore, it releases the energy of many Anglican Christians to be involved in mission, free from the difficulties of remaining in fellowship with those who have so clearly disregarded the word of God.

6th December, 2008 AD

Leaders of the Common Cause Partnership, a federation of more than 100,000 Anglican Christians in North America, will release to the public on the evening of Dec. 3 the draft constitution of an emerging Anglican Church in North America, formally subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and affirm the GAFCON Statement on the Global Anglican Future at an evening worship celebration in suburban Chicago.

This historic event comes in the wake of GAFCON held in Israel last June with leaders from more than one-half of the world’s 77 million Anglicans. At the close of that gathering, Anglican leaders released the Jerusalem Declaration and the GAFCON Statement on the Global Anglican Future, which outlined their Christian beliefs and goals to reform, heal and revitalize the Anglican Communion worldwide.

“One conclusion of the Global Anglican Future Conference held in Jerusalem last June was that the time for the recognition of a new Anglican body in North America had arrived,” observed Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of Common Cause Partnership. “The public release of our draft constitution is an important concrete step toward the goal of a biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America.”

Read it all.

The first invitation to the Lambeth Conference was given by Archbp. Rowan in May 07. The invitation included the bishops of TEC (except Gene Robinson or those consecrated under the jurisdiction of African provinces to serve in the US with disaffected parishes from TEC). The Windsor process set up to identify what was at stake in the Anglican communion after that consecration in 2003, and how the Communion should respond was still ongoing as TEC had been given until 30 Sept to intimate whether they would be complying with the requests made of them by the Primates meeting which had taken place in Dar es salaam in Feb. They and had not yet done so. Would an invitation to Lambeth before that date be like a letting off the hook? What would the impact of the invitation be in other parts of the Communion. The answer soon came.

The Archbishop of Uganda declared that those who consecrated Gene Robinson, and had not repented or apologised for that consecration, were just as responsible for the breach in the Communion as Gene Robinson himself, and if those TEC bishops were to attend Lambeth neither he nor the other bishops of Uganda would be coming.

Vinay Samuel in his recent address to the Reform Conference identifies this moment, this invitation given to the TEC, as being the trigger for GAFCON. I think he is right about that. At GAFCON in my conversations with African Bishops, this was the moment when they became convinced that nothing would be done to discipline TEC. From then on, other provinces declared they would not be coming to Lambeth.

Read it all.

The deposition of the Bishop of Pittsburgh was a “totalitarian” abuse of power and will not be recognized by the church in Africa, the chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) has declared.

On Nov 1, CAPA chairman Archbishop Ian Ernest, Primate of the Church of the Indian Ocean and Bishop of Mauritius, wrote to Bishop Robert Duncan on behalf of the African provinces and stated the African archbishops “continue to recognize you as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion.”

“Your commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine grounded in the Holy Scriptures is after all the mark of your identity as a true believer in the Anglican tradition,” Archbishop Ernest said. “Your grace, patience and forbearance in the face of opposition to your holy calling is an example to us all.”

Read it all.

I remain convinced that to understand the heart of our struggles we need to recognise that there are two distinct but related issues. One is the issue of sexuality and attitudes to Anglican teaching, discernment and practice on this subject as found in Resolution I.10 of Lambeth 1998. The other ”“ in some ways the more complicated one, especially for evangelicals ”“ is the issue of ecclesiology and what it means to be a global communion of Anglican churches….

In relation to North America, GAFCON is clearly seeking to be the means of constituting a new Anglican province. While I am among those who believe this is a sign of failure, it is now the inevitable consequence of developments over recent years and the key task is to ensure it is at least as good a “second best” as possible rather than something worse. The aim must be not only to build the church and spread the gospel in the US and Canada. The aim must also be to establish a structure which, even if initially only recognised by a few provinces, is able and willing, once the Anglican covenant is agreed, to make the necessary affirmations and commitments and so align itself with the newly configured covenantal Communion. The danger is that this development may become ”“ whether intentionally or not – the trigger for a fracturing of the wider Communion and the founding of a more narrowly defined purely confessional fellowship which is shaped less by the ecclesiological vision of Windsor and more by the forces of post-colonialism and hostility to the American church’s response to same-sex unions.

And what, finally, of our own Church [of England]? That is, I take it, where much of our discussion will focus today and I don’t want to pre-empt that but a few comments as I close. We would be foolish to deny that the fault-lines in North America and the wider Communion are not present here or to pretend that realignment in these other contexts can take place without effecting us. In particular, if the failings of Lambeth place more weight on the Archbishop of Canterbury, they also place more pressure on the province of which he is Primate. However, it would be both foolish and dangerous to pretend that our own situation is anywhere near as dire as that of either the American or Canadian churches or to claim that we are called to follow their path. The challenge especially for evangelical Anglicans in the CofE is therefore to find a way of maintaining their own unity and rejecting further fragmentation, standing in solidarity with others here in England and across the Communion who are committed to biblical teaching, and supporting the covenant process and all other means of reforming, healing and revitalising the Anglican Communion and serving God’s mission in the world.

Read it all.

We reflected and agonized about the pain that had characterized our efforts to uphold the Anglican Communion in good stead; the events of Lambeth 1998, the Primates meeting of Dromantine 2005 and Dar-es-Salaam 2007. We thanked God for sustaining us with courage to stand up for the historic and apostolic Christian faith as revealed in the Scriptures. We were particularly thankful for the organs that have mobilized us and kept us focused and engaged around the issues that have plagued the Anglican Communion. CAPA and the Global South were appreciated and Archbishop John Chew who was at the meeting was recognized with deep warmth of Christian love. He warmed up the meeting with the presentation of copies of the Catechism, a product of the Global South. The commitment of the Global South to resource the Communion was underlined by Archbishop Chew and applauded by the meeting. His call for sustained engagement by the Global South with the process of the Anglican Covenant was supported. We further shared our experiences of both GAFCON and Lambeth; and the statements emanating from the two meetings were shared. Those at Lambeth shared how the absence of some of the CAPA Members was acutely felt. They commended the Indaba framework, it provided space for intense and deep conversations guided by Scriptural readings, and they were particularly encouraged by confessions of discomfort by some Bishops from USA and Canada with the persistent undermining of the authority of Scripture by some of their colleagues. Participants from the CAPA family also appreciated the opportunity for fellowship and witness at the Lambeth; the Archbishop of Sudan was particularly commended for his statement. The Lambeth Conference Walk of Witness, which symbolized the Church’s commitment to improving the quality of life of God’s people through the MDGs’ framework and the multicultural worship that permeated the meeting were noted as some of the highlights at Lambeth. The Lambeth Conference, it was highlighted, did not make any resolutions but offered the Anglican Covenant as one the means forward. The GAFCON, it was reported, was a great time of fellowship and spiritual blessings. The Jerusalem venue and the excursions were appreciated by participants as they deepened the reflections, ”˜It was like walking through the Bible Events physically’…

Read it all.

While we were still linked to the Brazilian Province (IEAB) we approved in our Diocesan Canons a veto on the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and heterosexuals who affirm the normality of homosexual practice, while simultaneously condemning homophobia. We also resolved to forge relationships and links exclusively with those Provinces, Dioceses, Parishes and Institutions of the Anglican Communion which uphold biblical teaching, the apostolic tradition and the resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences. The Standing Committee and bishops undersigned the “Declaration of Recife”, a document of protest against the consecration of Gene Robinson. At Lambeth 1998, of the Brazilian delegation, only Bishop Cavalcanti (Diocese of Recife) voted in favor of Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality, and in 2004, participated in a Confirmation Rite in Akkron, Ohio. On both these occasions the diocesan bishop received ample support from the wider diocesan leadership.

During the most difficult moments of our crisis with the Brazilian Province, in opposition to false teaching, the Diocese of Recife remained committed to firm debate in the sphere of ideas, principles and practice, never lowering the tone, and never indulging in personal attacks. However, the Brazilian Province (a direct ally of TEC [USA]) insisted on attacks at a personal level, a diversionary tactic intended to dislocate the focus of the real issues which divide us, so as to weaken international support for us and our just cause. In Brazil and in the UK we had to hire lawyers who could file criminal charges against our defamers – those that shy away from ecclesiastical and civil courts but not from the dark terrain of malign, using to aid their cause, the institution and the visibility of their leaders. Given the historical context, the bishop of the Diocese of Recife would have come under personal attack from adversaries, regardless of who he was.

Read it all.

The twin trajectories of The Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Church of Canada away from any Communion-requested restraint on matters of moral order and legal prosecution have made permanent a widespread separation of parishes from their historic geographical dioceses in the United States and Canada. Now these alienated parishes representing the moral (and theological) mainstream of global Anglicanism are being joined (or are about to be joined) by the majorities of four former Episcopal Church dioceses: San Joaquin in California, Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, Quincy in Illinois and Fort Worth in Texas. The reality of a significantly disintegrated North American Anglicanism now stretches from coast to coast and from the Arctic to the Rio Grande.

Given the ruthlessness with which those who have stood against the progressive agenda of TEC and the ACC have been treated ”“ lately symbolized by the deposition of the Bishop of Pittsburgh ”“ the possibility of achieving the Windsor Continuation Group’s goal of “holding” for eventual reunion is remote indeed.. Moreover, there is scarcely a parish or diocese that has endured the travail of separation (whether forced or chosen) that would not describe the North American Anglican scene as characterized by “two irreconcilable religions.”

Read it all.

Nevertheless, we believe that Iain has failed to grasp the real position of the Church of England in relation to doctrine and Scripture. His article speaks of the conference redefining ”˜Anglican’ in relation to a historic definition in which membership involves adhering to the established church and being in communion with the see of Canterbury. This is to swallow a definition that has been promoted by Anglo-Catholics since the 19th century. A Catholic view of the church sometimes emphasises order and office at the expense of doctrine and, therefore, the serious misunderstanding that fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury is essential to the definition of what it means to be Anglican has been spread abroad. Yet the historic position is that being Anglican essentially involves commitment to biblical doctrine.

That is why the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement insists our identity as Anglicans is expressed in the words of Canon A5: ”˜The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal’. This is why the Jerusalem Statement then stated: ”˜While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury’. It is essential to see that the historic and evangelical position is that being Anglican depends on what you believe more than particular features of church life and order.

A lesser point is that Iain queries point 4 of the Jerusalem Declaration which says: ”˜We uphold the 39 Articles as containing the true doctrine of the church’. He says that the word ”˜containing’ is an escape clause. However the intention in this expression is simply to make it clear that while committed to their confession of faith we do not regard the 39 Articles as God’s own words. We have noted that Gresham Machen (Christianity and Liberalism, p.163) complains about ministers who, as required, solemnly declare at their ordination that the ”˜Westminster Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures’ and then decry that same Confession. What was good enough for Gresham Machen is good enough for us as well.

Read it all.

I was General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion in the eighties. I saw this development before my eyes. While EFAC groups grew in England and North America and Australia, in Africa there seemed no need for them: for the Church of Kenya was evangelical; the Church of Uganda and Rwanda, fresh from the inspiration of the East African Revival was charismatic and evangelical. The Church of Tanzania had both evangelical and orthodox Anglo-Catholic roots. Where there was biblical evangelical and orthodox faithfulness, the churches grew. Where these elements were not present, the Anglican church stagnated as in Japan.

The result today is that two-thirds of the non-western Anglican Churches are biblically faithful Anglicans of the evangelical variety.This is the fruit of the identity and space forged for evangelical Anglicans in the Communion by the Keele Congress. Keele and its products validated the possibility of there being evangelical Anglicans in a liturgical Church that was seen as Catholic . As a result the Church of Nigeria for example could grow as an evangelical Anglican church.

The first time this reality came to global prominence was the 1988 Lambeth Conference. It was there that the African Bishops in particular were able to make a united stand for calling for a decade of evangelism. That was their idea. Then in 1998 they made a stand for orthodoxy in the communion’s teaching on sexuality. Then in 2008 they [chose for reasons of conscience no to attend]… the Lambeth Conference and held GAFCON.

It is not possible to understand these developments without understanding the emergence of Global non-western Anglicanism that is fundamentally orthodox. Since 1988 they have been slowly taking responsibility for the whole Anglican Communion.

This responsibility has been exercised carefully in the years since Lambeth 1998. There the non-western orthodox Anglicans took responsibility to safeguard the orthodox teaching of the communion on marriage. When this was challenged in the years after 1998, again and again the orthodox primates ensured that the primates meetings and the ACC repeatedly stood by Lambeth 1.10 and called for order and discipline.

Read it all.

The Synod of the Diocese of Sydney has overwhelmingly endorsed the Jerusalem Declaration, the key document to emerge from GAFCON earlier this year.

Debate on the motion was begun by the Bishop of North Sydney, Dr Glenn Davies, who was on the Gafcon committee which drafted the Jerusalem Declaration.

The Bishop described it as an honour to serve on the commitee, saying the statement itself was not pre-written but was developed word for word during the week.

Read it all.

“I think,” [Bishop Robert] Duncan says, “the 21st century will be for the archbishop of Canterbury what the 20th century was for the royal family.” That is, an era of diminution.

Because Protestantism has no structure of authority comparable to the Vatican and because it does not merely tolerate but enjoins individual judgments by “the priesthood of all believers” concerning beliefs and obligations, all Protestants are potential Luthers. Hence it is evidence of spiritual vigor that Episcopalians in Quincy, Ill., and Fort Worth will vote on disassociation from the U.S. communion on Nov. 7 and Nov. 14, respectively.

The Episcopal Church once was America’s upper crust at prayer. Today it is “progressive” politics cloaked — very thinly — in piety. Episcopalians’ discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

Read it all.

The fact, timing and manner of the action taken by the American House of Bishops toward Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh has filled us with dismay. He is a Bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and is guilty only of guarding his people from false teaching and corrupt behaviour as he promised to do. Once more the upholders of the orthodox faith are made to suffer at the hands of those who have introduced new teachings.

However, the action has also had the effect of clarifying matters even further. It is now impossible to believe that the exhortations of the Lambeth Conference and the Windsor Continuation Group will be heeded. No Pastoral Forum has been established. We remain convinced that the faithful Anglicans of North America need to have their own Province recognised by the Communion as a whole. We are determined to stand with Bishop Duncan and those who, like him, have protested in the name of God against the unscriptural innovations which have caused such divisions amongst us.

In the absence of other substantive provision from the historic structures of the Communion, the Primates’ Council gives its full support to Archbishop Greg Venables in receiving Bishop Duncan as a Bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone.

From the Diocese of Pittsburgh website, here are statements from +Venables, +Gomez, Nzimbi, +Kolini. Also posted there are statements from +Mouneer Anis, +Peter Jesen of Sydney, and +Cavalcanti, Diocese of Recife.

A Joint Statement from Archbishops Venables of the Southern Cone, Gomez of the West Indies and Nzimbi of Kenya.

In the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Amen. We the undersigned are grieved at the violation of catholic order in the declaration of deposition of The Right Rev. Robert Duncan by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and consider it to be invalid. Legitimate actions of catholic order must rise from Biblical catholic faith. Actions such as this continue to alienate countless Christian people not only within, but beyond the limits of the Communion. We continue to recognize the fidelity and validity of Bishop Duncan’s orders, role, and ministry. Without reservation, we continue in full sacramental communion with him as an Anglican bishop. We thank God that by the vote of the Provincial Synod he has been given membership in the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Our fellowship and shared ministry with him is not disrupted.

Yours in Christ,
The Most Rev Gregory Venables
The Most Rev Drexel Gomez
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzimbi

From Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda:
September 17, 2008

News is circulating around the United State and the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops is likely to depose the Rt. Rev. Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, this week at a special meeting. I have known and worked with Bishop Duncan for a number of years, and I know him to be a godly man.

As he faces this time of trial, I encourage him to remember that he is not being deposed by God, but only by man. He will remain very much a part of the new work that God is creating within Anglicanism. In addition, he and his family will remain in my thoughts and prayers, and I am confident that the Lord will bless Bishop Duncan in this new season of ministry.

I am reminded of Joseph’s words to his brothers that are recorded in Genesis. <> (Genesis 50 : 20a, New King James Version). May this also be true for Bishop Duncan as he continues his faithful service to God and the Church.

Most Reverend Emmanuel Kolini
Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda

While we have always have our historic formularies and creeds, the Church has needed from time to time to restate again her position on issues affecting our common life. In the 1998 Lambeth, one of the issues was our Church position on the family. And if Lambeth 2008 is anything to go by, that mind remains.

If so, why can’t we submit ourselves to this discipline and mutual accountability as minimally expressed through the Windsor-proposed Covenant process (as a solution to the crisis and help the Communion to deal with future similar ones)? If being part of the wider (global and by far, much larger in some parts) Communion is to mean anything, why can’t each Province choose to stand together on this? And we have not even begin to mention our relationships with our ecumenical partners and what these recent innovations will do to our long held ”˜Via Media’ role.

We have come thus far in affirming the Windsor Report (and the ”˜process,’ which in the opinion of some, weakens the report). Whether quick or otherwise, the crisis needs fixing.

We pray that the Covenant Design Group and various Communion bodies will not blink.

Read it all.

5. We believe at this present critical juncture in the history of the Anglican Communion it is important for churches outside the traditional Anglo-American trajectories to offer a distinct and critical theological voice: speaking from the context of the global South, offering a theological articulation on issues facing the Communion as we see and read it to the deliberations in the Communion, and giving expression to the trajectories of God’s divine work in our histories.

6. We recognise that we need to draw strength from one another’s insights from the diverse socio-political contexts we serve, and to rediscover and share together how we can best uphold and pass on the faith once delivered to the saints.

7. We commit ourselves to work for the common good of the Communion, with the view that it would rediscover its moorings in the faith and worship of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, and that our churches would be a sign of hope and reconciliation in this broken world.

Read it all.

The publication of the communiqué from the recent London meeting of the GAFCON Primates’ Council (report, page 1) marks a further development of what is termed a “movement” within Anglicanism. The development is particularly significant because of the impetus given to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) and because of the formation of a secretariat. One thus sees three strands to this formalised, traditional Anglican movement: first, a Primates’ Council; second, a wider body (the FCA) which is open to membership of individuals, Churches, dioceses, provinces and parachurch organisations; and third, a secretariat. A further and most significant aspect of the GAFCON Primates’ communiqué is the reference to the possible formation of a province in North America for the Common Cause Partnership. This would very probably have serious funding implications for The Episcopal Church, USA and possibly also for the Anglican Communion itself and its Communion-wide organisations.

All of this witnesses to a structured Anglican realignment, although the GAFCON constituency remains in communion with the See of Canterbury. However, what is happening all round is certainly not bringing everyone together and, as we know, there are those bishops now who simply will not receive Holy Communion with fellow bishops. Nor does the proposal to have an Anglican Covenant fare well in the GAFCON Primates’ communiqué.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the traditionalist point of view in relation to same-sex relationships – and that, after all, is the real presenting issue leading to all of this confusion – is eminently reasonable and, indeed, eminently traditional and scriptural, but it is unfortunate that the GAFCON Primates use somewhat emotive language in their communiqué (e.g. “sinful practices”), however justifiable they may consider such terminology to be. Yet the 1998 Lambeth I.10 resolution did call for sensitivity, and effectively calling good people sinners is not a sensitive approach. That, however, is not the core issue. The core issue for Anglicans is that the consecration of bishops and the ordination of clergy in active same-sex relationships and public rites of blessing of same-sex relationships are all simply so lacking in consensus within Anglicanism that we have come to this very sorry pass, which has witnessed a Lambeth Conference boycotted by one-fifth to one quarter of those bishops invited. Unity-in-diversity just cannot cope in this case.

Read it all.

The Anglican Communion has been broken and it is an “illusion” to believe things can ever be the same again, the archbishops of the Gafcon movement said last week following their first organizational meeting in London.

The leaders of the conservative wing of the Anglican Communion, representing more than half of the Church’s active members, on Aug 29 released a statement affirming the aims of the movement — now known as the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) — and restated its commitment to the reform and renewal of the Communion.

However, they disagreed sharply with the course taken by Archbishop Rowan Williams in avoiding a full and frank airing of the issues, with one insider telling The Church of England Newspaper the Anglican Communion’s sex wars had taken on a Dickensian quality, and like “Jarndyce and Jarndyce” was still dragging its “dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

As requested we have carefully studied the Reflections of the Windsor Continuation Group ”“ in particular the section that refers to our ministry within the North America. We offer these comments….

4. As was also the case with the statements from Dromantine and Dar es Salaam we reject the moral equivalence that is now explicitly asserted between those who continue to support the blessing of same sex unions and the ordination of persons involved in same gender unions in deliberate violation of the teaching of the Communion and those who are offering pastoral oversight for those alienated by these actions.

5. We have consistently observed that the current leadership of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have embraced a theological and doctrinal stance that is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Communion and more specifically that of our host provinces and our individual bishops, clergy and congregations. Consequently we can envision no way in which we could be part of Pastoral Forum in which either Church exercises any leadership role.

6. While we welcomed the comments of the Windsor Continuation Group that “ways of halting litigation must be explored,” those of us who are the subject of pernicious litigation initiated by The Episcopal Church find these rather tentative comments fall far short of what is needed for us to even consider any serious engagement with the proposed structures. Until the litigation is halted and a settlement achieved there is no possibility that we can enter into any formal agreements with any representatives of The Episcopal Church.

Read it all.