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.

The GAFCON primates have a number of questions they intend to ask during the next meeting of the primates which is tentatively scheduled to be held early in 2009. An exact date and location for the meeting has not yet been announced. Among the questions he and other GAFCON primates hope are discussed Bishop Venables said are what happened to the pastoral scheme that the primates proposed in their communiqué following the previous meeting of the primates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in February 2007? Is that proposal dead and if so who made that decision?

Bishop Venables said he and several other primates’ council members have additional concerns about the format of the primates’ meeting as proposed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in his post-Lambeth pastoral letter to Anglican bishops. The proposal to include Indaba small-group discussion was a particular concern, Bishop Venables added.

“I think it is up to the primates to decide how they are going to do things,” he said. “I don’t think we can be told ahead of time what type of meeting we are going to have or how we are going to talk.”

Read it all.

We maintain that three new facts of the Anglican Communion must be faced. We are past the time when they can be reversed.

First, some Anglicans have sanctified sinful practices and will continue to do so whatever others may think. Second, churches and even dioceses affected by this disobedience have rightly withdrawn fellowship while wishing to remain authentic Anglicans. So-called ”˜border-crossing’ is another way of describing the provision of recognition and care for those who have been faithful to the teachings of Holy Scripture. Third, there is widespread impaired and broken sacramental communion amongst Anglicans with far-reaching global implications. The hope that we may somehow return to the state of affairs before 2003 is an illusion.

Any sound strategy must accommodate itself to these facts.

GAFCON remains a gospel movement. It is far from saying that its membership are the only true Anglicans or the only gospel people in the Anglican Communion. We thank God that this is not the case. But the movement recognises the acute spiritual dangers of a compromised theology and aims to be a resource and inspiration for those who wish to defend and promote the biblical gospel.

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will function as a means of sharing in this great task. We invite individuals, churches, dioceses, provinces and parachurch organisations who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration to signify their desire to become members of the Fellowship via the GAFCON web-site or written communication with the Secretariat. The Fellowship will develop networks, commissions and publications intended to defend and promote the biblical gospel in ways which support one another.

At the same time, the Council and its Advisory Board will seek to deal with the problems of those who have confessed the biblical faith in the face of hostility and found the need on grounds of conscience and in matters of great significance to break the normal bonds of fellowship in the name of the gospel. For the sake of the Anglican Communion this is an effort to bring order out of the chaos of the present time and to make sure as far as possible that some of the most faithful Anglican Christians are not lost to the Communion. It is expected that priority will be given to the possible formation of a province in North America for the Common Cause Partnership.

Read it all.

Recognizing the division and brokenness which currently exists, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated in his August 2008 Pastoral Letter reflecting on Lambeth, “The Conference was not a time for making new laws or for binding decisions”¦The Conference Design Group believed strongly that the chief need of our Communion at the moment was the rebuilding of relationships ”“ the rebuilding of trust in one another ”“ and of confidence in our Anglican identity. And it was with this in mind that they planned for a very different sort of Conference, determined to allow every bishop’s voice to be heard”¦”

Unfortunately while ample opportunity was in fact given for bishops to speak during the daily Bible studies, Indaba Groups, self-select sessions, and plenary sessions, the western design of much of the Conference made speaking uncomfortable for many non-westerners and — as earlier attested to by Archbishop Orombi, the fact that one speaks does not necessarily mean they have been heard. The Anglican Communion has been encouraged for over ten years now to participate in a “listening process” as a means of working through the issues that divide us. While I am a firm believer in the importance of listening, even to those that we disagree with, unfortunately when dealing as we currently are with what I have come to believe are theologically irreconcilable differences in the views passionately held by each side of the debate on issues of the authority of Holy Scripture and human sexuality, I seriously question the chance of reconciliation by those on either end of the theological spectrum, barring a Damascus Road experience by one side or the other. No doubt, each side believes it is the other side that Jesus needs to zap.

This belief was confirmed at Lambeth while listening to some of the debates regarding homosexuality. During one of the sessions, an African bishop made an impassioned call upon the West to restrain from blessing same-sex unions and ordaining individuals engaged in homosexual lifestyles, stating that the Moslem extremists in his country are looking for any reason to attack and kill Anglican Christians. He said the revisionist actions of the West are giving them all the reason they need, resulting in the death and imprisonment of many of his people. Equally passionate, but from the opposite perspective, two Episcopal bishops spoke about justice for their gay and lesbian clergy and people, proclaiming their strong unceasing support for gay rights and that they would not stop the blessing of same sex unions in their diocese.

Unfortunately in many cases, the very ones calling for others to listen are unwilling to listen themselves. For some, the listening process will not be complete or successful until the other side is worn down and finally agrees with their position. Given the current debate on issues of human sexuality, when virtually every argument both for and against homosexual behavior, sex outside of marriage, and abortion have already been made numerous times over, the question ultimately must be asked ”“ When is enough, enough? The longer the debate goes on, the more divided we seem to become and the more distracted we are from proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A major distinction between GAFCON and Lambeth concerning this issue is that for GAFCON, the debate seems to be over, for Lambeth, no end is in sight.

Read it all.

We, as the Bishops and elected leaders of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) are deeply grateful for the Jerusalem Declaration. It describes a hopeful, global Anglican future, rooted in scripture and the authentic Anglican way of faith and practice. We joyfully welcome the words of the GAFCON statement that it is now time ”˜for the federation currently known as the Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates Council.’

The intention of the CCP Executive Committee is to petition the Primates Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primates Council.

We accept the call to build the Common Cause Partnership into a truly unified body of Anglicans. We are committed to that call. Over the past months, we have worked together, increasing the number of partners and authorizing committees and task groups for Mission, Education, Governance, Prayer Book & Liturgy, the Episcopate, and Ecumenical Relations. The Executive Committee is meeting regularly to carry forward the particulars of this call. The CCP Council will meet December 1”“3, 2008.

Read it all.

Stephen Crittenden: And …[Archbishop Rowan Williams] seems to have carried that through with the support of Primates. In fact like Phillip Aspinall from Australia, he made it fairly clear he was behind it. So there seems to have been at least a central group who was in favour of pursuing that right through the conference and out the other side.

Bruce Kaye: Absolutely. And the second thing he saw support for was what he called his ‘pastoral forum’, designed to help people who are minorities in particular provinces. And then he said a number of other things, how the instruments of communion work, and international development work and so on.

What I think that means is that what you have is a conference of general conversation in which the President, Archbishop Rowan Williams, identifies back to the conference what really was the consensus general direction of the conference, without any voting on that question.

Stephen Crittenden: Given his reputation, he’s actually being very bureaucratically and strategically clever on this occasion.

Bruce Kaye: Well I was going to say he’s been very papal, actually.

Stephen Crittenden: The draft covenant that the bishops saw at Lambeth seems to have been more punitive and legalistic than the majority of the bishops present were comfortable with.

Bruce Kaye: I think the general consensus according to the documents produced so far, was that they didn’t like the appendix, which is very bureaucratic.

Stephen Crittenden: Is the Anglican church going to end up with a document or indeed some new institution, a pastoral council or a faith and order committee that actually does have real teeth? I mean this gets back to the whole way the Anglican tradition deals with conflict.

Bruce Kaye: Yes, it does. I’m not sure what will happen in that direction, but I’m sure that there’ll be persistent efforts to try and find some way of making decisions about levels of affiliation.

Stephen Crittenden: In other words, if you’re not willing to give up a certain degree of autonomy, you may have to settle for a lower level of participation in the central church?

Bruce Kaye: I think that’s right.

Read it all.

The Times also writes: “And tensions between the West and Islam underlie the complaint by African bishops that an endorsement of homosexuality by Western churches puts Christians at a disadvantage with Muslims — and at risk of physical violence — in areas where the two faiths compete for adherents.”

A “disadvantage”? Exclusion is a far worse disadvantage for Anglicans. Risk of violence is another thing, however. Still, I am curious if this violence is truly based on homosexuality in the United States. After all, if African bishops and local Muslims are on the same side of the dispute, how can there be disagreement, let alone fighting? Perhaps agreements by some bishops (such as Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola) to support violence against homosexuals and their supporters by joining with local Muslims in oppression should be given more examination in the “culture war.”

The Times’ use of language that styles African bishops and their American supporters as culture warriors victimized by liberal encroachment neither accurately describes the situation in the Anglican Communion nor benefits the healthy exchange of ideas. The so-called culture war is not a response to victimization but an excuse to exclude, deride and criminalize those who are different. Why don’t we start to discuss “traditional notions of faith and family” as describing compassionate action and loving, committed relationships? Those are truly Biblical notions.

Read it all.

One of the key benefits of this Lambeth conference was the opportunity it afforded Anglican leaders from throughout the world, including our own Primate, Archbishop Greg, to meet together in groups, as well as one-on-one, to discuss important matters. There have been many reports of positive “indaba” and Bible study group meetings.

There have also been reports of frustration. Frustration that Lambeth, by design, did not produce any further clarity on the crisis ”“ no clear direction, no decisions. However, this was indeed by design and was cited by bishops who chose not to attend as one of the factors in their decision. Two Primates ”“ one attending Lambeth, one not ”“ spoke passionately and eloquently of the intransigent anti-Christian actions of the North American churches, actions that precipitated the crisis. I have great respect for both Archbishop Deng Bul (Sudan) and Archbishop Orombi (Uganda) for their courage in taking their stands when silence would have been far easier.

I was struck by the marked contrast between what I was hearing from Lambeth and what I experienced at the GAFCon meeting only a few weeks earlier in Jerusalem. The ambiguity and confusion created by Lambeth is in stark contrast to the clarity and joy of GAFCon. While Lambeth focused on holding together institutional unity in the absence of spiritual unity, GAFCon manifested the genuine unity of those who share the same Lord, the same Truth and the same Spirit. Those of us privileged to be in Jerusalem in June experienced daily symphonies of praise as brothers and sisters in Christ worshipped together in “one accord”.

Sadly, Lambeth again clearly demonstrated that there are those who call themselves Anglicans who have strayed far from Christian truth and have embraced another lord and a different gospel. The Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, is struggling to do the impossible ”“ hold together under the Anglican banner two utterly incompatible religions. Thus, the incoherence, the confusion, and the contradictions contained in the Lambeth documents. Compare the 42 page Lambeth “Reflections” document which says everything, but in the end says nothing, to the four page GAFCon statement, which offered a clear statement of faith and outlined next steps.

Read it all.

“We’re going to do an assessment of what happened at Lambeth and [the Global Anglican Fellowship Conference] to see what might be possible,” Bishop [Peter] Beckwith said when reached by a reporter for The Living Church. “This is not a decision-making meeting, although I would not oppose a decision if a consensus is reached.”

Read it all.

Catholics who keep up with Anglicanism may have observed that the whole thing seems to be visibly coming apart.

On the one hand, at June’s rally of the world’s conservative Anglicans in Jerusalem — the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) — over a thousand conservative leaders declared their willingness to work outside the official structure and indeed to intervene in the errant Western Anglican churches in defense of their marginalized and oppressed conservatives.

On the other, over 200 conservative bishops, mostly from Africa, simply refused to attend late July’s Lambeth Conference, the decennial meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops, because the bishops of the Episcopal Church — who, by ordaining an openly fornicating homosexual bishop, had thumbed their noses at the rest of the world’s Anglicans, and the Christian moral tradition to boot — were seated with full voice and vote.

Of particular interest will be the fate of the small Anglo-Catholic party, the wing closest to Catholicism in doctrine and devotion, now found almost entirely in England and the English-speaking former colonies. It was once, in the 1920s and early 1930s, the most creative and effective party in Anglicanism, but has kept declining since.

Read it all.

There were 1,148 lay and clergy participants – including 291 bishops – from among many faithful Anglican Christians who still look at the Bible as the Word of God, not just a ‘primary source’, as some are led to believe by liberal revisionist theology. Gafcon believes that Anglicanism has a bright future for as long as we are obedient to the Lord’s Great Commission “to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching and training them to observe what the Lord commands.”(Matt 28:16-20; Eph.2:20). Gafcon is a movement in the Spirit and a fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Please read the statement on the Global Anglican Future. There is nothing divisive about it. The Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa are affiliated to it. Pray that the unity of the church be preserved. “Can the two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Continue to pray for Lambeth so that we may have common mind in obedience to God’s written Holy Word in all our deliberations. Lambeth is not only about the issue of homosexuality, it is also about how the poor are held ransom as the rich dictate terms and power, in order to continue to subdue the colonized with shackles of hunger, want and misery. It is my wish to remind you that what the heart loves, the will chooses and the mind justifies. May God’s kingdom come, and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Read it all.

It was an emotionally up and down day. The final verson of the “Reflections” came out and I was not only disappointed with its content, but also with the process. We had not been given a chance to review the last and most controversial section before it was printed up, and I felt that the process had not been done fairly. The trust that had built up over the past few weeks was rapidly evaporating for me. But after a wonderful final Bible study session and the chance to air my concerns in the final indaba group, I felt much better.

There will be a lot of questions as to “what came out of Lambeth?” I will be mulling this over in the next week or so, and will write more about it later, but it is probably easier to say what did NOT come out. First, no schism! Those who predicted that this would be the end of the Anglican Communion were dead wrong. Yes, there is a group (GAFCON) which has already left, but those of us remaining (about 85%) are committed to remaining together. The other thing did not come out was any kind of policy. There was no legislation done–only conversations were held. Finally, what will have to wait is a solution to the problems that beset us. There will be more meetings, more discussions. The American House of Bishop’s meeting in September will be important for us to digest the meeting and come to some understanding of how we will respond to the mood of Lambeth, especially as regards c the issues of moratoria and “Pastoral Forums” who could monitor our compliance with the Windsor Report. All this remains to be done, and no one should jump to any early conclusions!

As for what DID come out–There is above all a renewed scene of connectedness in mission. As one bishop said, “We are the product of the conference.” This new level of trust and respect and unity in Christ will serve us well in the years ahead.

Read it all. It is remarkable how many TEC bishops continue to misrepresent those they disagree with. GAFCON has not “already left” as was made clear at the GAFCON conference and in the concluding statement of the conference–KSH.

The Primates’ Council of GAFCON will wish to study the outcome of the Lambeth Conference carefully and consult with those they are leading. They are meeting towards the end of August and will make their response following that meeting.

2. We are consciously mindful of the absence of our fellow Episcopal colleagues from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and elsewhere, who, for principled reasons could not be present at this Lambeth Conference. We thank God for their costly faithfulness and vigilance. We acknowledge the issuing of the Jerusalem Declaration which deserves careful study and consideration. At the same time, we also stand in solidarity with all the faithful Bishops, Clergy and Laity in the United States and Canada and elsewhere who are suffering recrimination and hostility perpetrated upon them by their dioceses and/or national churches which have not unequivocally complied with the specific Windsor proposals required of them in full.

3. We rejoice that the fellowship of orthodox episcopal leaders continue to grow in maturity in common faith and witness. Early in the Conference we, some 200 bishops, were greatly blessed when we met at a special gathering on Jul 22 for fellowship and sharing, co-hosted by seventeen Global South Provinces. We were very encouraged by the presence of three Bishops of the Oriental Orthodox churches and for their words of encouragement and challenge to faithfulness. We were encouraged to learn and endorsed the reaffirmation of the “total and collegial commitment to the solemn vocation of the Global South” in the Statement of the Global South Primates Steering Committee Meeting on 13-15 March 2008. We are greatly inspired by and endorsed the Statement of the Sudanese Bishops to this Lambeth Conference on the ECS Position on Human Sexuality which was issued at great cost. The Final Report of the Global South Anglican Theological Formation and Education Task Force Anglican Catechism in Outline: A Common Home Between Us was also warmly received. Since the historic “Red Sea Encounter” of 2005, Global South provinces have moved forward in close fellowship and partnership in ministry and mission, in theological reflection and formation, and sharing of human, skills and material resources.

4. We gather at a critical time when the Anglican Communion as a communion of ordered churches is at the probable brink of collapse. We are encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s First Presidential Address, and the related presentations by the Anglican Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group to the Conference at the opening evening of the Conference. We expect all attending this Conference at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the words of his Advent 2007 Letter, to be willing and accepting “to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant”.

Read it all.

————
UPDATE:
Terry Wong, the administrator of the Global South Anglican blog asked us to let readers know this statement has been updated in several places and now includes a list of signatories among the Global South Primates.

Q: How do you characterize where this process is moving? Is it moving at all or is it a stalemate?

A: I think it depends on what your expectations are. There are people who want this all tied up into a neat and tidy little package as of yesterday, and there are other people who feel that the longer we take doing this the better off we’ll be, because there will just be that much more time for people to converse with one another, understand where each other is coming from, and so on, so it probably depends on who you ask. I personally don’t think this Communion is broken, and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, and there are all kinds of people trying to fix this. So as a person in the American church, I think we’re doing what is best in the Anglican tradition. We have always been a church that said you figure out what is appropriate for your local context, and you figure out what God is telling you to do there and do it. So the American church did that with my election and consenting with my election, and now people are suddenly saying, oh no, we didn’t really mean that at all, and we have to, we have to bring about more order. Well, you know, this is a church that was founded resisting such a centralized bureaucracy in Rome, so how odd for people who call themselves traditionalists to be trying to take us to a place that has never been our tradition, to be some kind of centralized authority that rules on whether or not something is too far out of step or whatever. So to those of us who don’t think it’s broken, it’s taken a long time [and] that’s just fine. But my fear is that there are people who are working to bring this to a close, a point of departure, I don’t know how you describe it, but someplace that will make everybody choose.

Q: What’s at risk with this meeting?

A: The reason I’m so committed to the Anglican Communion is, especially as an American and an American Christian, there are things I need to hear from people in the developing world, like the ramifications of our racism, our colonialism, American hegemony in terms of our military prowess, of economic clout, and so on, and I think we have done some pretty terrible things in the world, and if we don’t have brothers and sisters in Christ in the developing world who can tell us what will not be comfortable to hear, but speak the truth in love, as we’re commanded to do, I don’t know who’s going to tell us those things, and so I think we need each other, and the Communion, as it has been, is this quite loose confederation of churches, each doing ministry in its own context but, through a variety of ways, talking to each other. If we lose that we’ve lost a great opportunity, so I would really lament that. I don’t think it is worth completely giving up who we are, either as the American church or giving up our 500 years of tradition as an Anglican Communion, and changing ourselves radically to preserve it.

Read it all.

I will consider posting comments on this article submitted first by email to Kendall’s E-mail: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

It is both a moral and pastoral responsibility to bring closure to a disciplinary issue for the sake of the flock. The nature, intensity and duration of the disciplinary response can be mitigated by various factors, but to fail to exercise them is a failure of pastoral leadership. Vicars of parishes know this only too well. There can be a lot of listening and pastoral understanding, but the continual viability of a community is dependent on the proper exercise of this moral and pastoral responsibility.

Dar es Salaam held the most promise. It was Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, speaking in one voice. Or at least, it appeared so initially. How has it been followed through? Kyrie Eleison, repeating the closing words of our dear Archbishop of Uganda’s latest public address. We can’t help but ask, “If that Statement did not do much, what will these WCG observations accomplish?”

We may need to retrace our steps ”“ back to Dar Es Salaam ”“ if there is any hope for healing.

Those who are quick to judge the Lambeth absentees need to know that these very same ones have worked tirelessly to heal the torn fabric these past five years. Leadership means sticking your necks out, being misunderstood and criticised, and this is the price which many of them have paid. Some have felt that they are now relegated to the category of those who ”˜are deeply exercised over matters which they have no control.’ And so, they stayed away. For the record, even the Province of Southeast Asia is not fully represented. A bishop and assistant bishop chose to absent themselves to protest that ”˜all is not well and it cannot be business as usual.’ After all, the ”˜impaired communion’ SEA Province Statement still stands.

In this context, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Second Presidential Address is deeply disappointing. Once again, the crisis is seen as a family squabble. Whatever the background whispers may be and personal insight one may have on the Archbishop of Cantebury’s real intentions (and I have deep admiration for his spiritual commitment, exemplary devotional life and theological wisdom), we can only respond to him based on his public communication and leadership actions.

Read it all.

We in the Global South believed the Primates’ Meeting had this authority – the 1988 Lambeth Conference urged the Primates’ Meeting to “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters” and the 1998 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed this.

So, it was appropriate, after the American decision in 2003, that the Archbishop of Canterbury convened an emergency meeting of the primates to address the biblical and ecclesiastical crisis into which the Americans had plunged the Anglican Communion. The primates, including the American primate, unanimously advised that the consecration should not proceed. Nonetheless, two weeks later, the primate in America presided at the consecration as bishop of a man living in a same-sex relationship. This was a deep betrayal.

Since that meeting there have been numerous other “betrayals” to the extent that it is now hard to believe that the leadership in the American Church means what it says. They say that they are not authorising blessings of same-sex unions, yet we read newspaper reports of them. Two American bishops have even presided at such services of blessings. Bishops have written diocesan policies on the blessings of same-sex unions. It is simply untrue to say they have not been authorised.

That such blessings continue and seem to be increasing hardly demonstrates “regret”, let alone repentance, on the part of the American Church. So, when the Archbishop of Canterbury invited these American bishops to participate in the Lambeth Conference, against the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Meeting, and in the face of the unrelenting commitment of the American Church to bless sinful behaviour, we were stunned. Further betrayal.

It was clear to me and to our House of Bishops that the Instruments of Communion had utterly failed us.

Read it all.

Update: George Pitcher has comments in response here.

What bishops should be more concerned about is her insinuation that a non-white culture leads to domestic violence and that white, western culture is too civilised and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur. Roskam fails to recognise that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.

But perhaps bishops should not be surprised by her attitude, which has echoes in an incident from the previous Lambeth conference in 1998, when another American bishop claimed African Christians had only just developed from believing that rocks and trees have spirits and did not understand modern science. This rhetoric, and the underlying assertion of superiority, plays into the hands of conservative evangelicals who are fed up with colonialist attitudes, but also of people who argue that religion, its followers and leaders are backwards and irrelevant.

Read it all.

There are a number of serious and deeply held misconceptions operative throughout the conference.

One, stated by the Windsor Continuation Group, “the proliferation of ad hoc Episcopal and archiespiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion.” Translation: Communion leadership is angry with Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, the Southern Cone et al., for consecrating bishops and charging them with the development of their missionary outreach in the States and Canada.

No one adds to this condemnation a simple statement of fact that these actions were taken because the Communion stood by and did nothing substantive while abusive actions against believing clergy and parishes (now whole dioceses) on the American shores continued….

Two, the word “inclusive” has completely replaced an older and historically more familiar word “comprehensive” which, frankly, is the familiar word one used to describe a far healthier Anglicanism. The two words are not synonymous…..

Three, the Global Anglican South Conference, is spoken of with disdain….

Read it all.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Sunday for most of us was a lovely day of worship at Canterbury Cathedral, at which the Dean preached, and Archbishop Rowan celebrated. That was followed by a superb barbecue on the lawn (lamb, chicken, sausage; actually, the best meal in our time here!) In the afternoon there was a Civic Reception in the ruins of the Abbey that was build by St. Augustine (he didn’t lay the stones, himself, but he oversaw its construction) in the early years of the seventh century. The Dean told us in his sermon that some of the pages of the Bible given to Augustine by Gregory the Great in 597 are still intact! I would love to have seen them, but I believe they are in the archives at Cambridge University.

Today’s Indaba subject was “The Bishop, Christian Witness, and Other Faiths.” During the session a DRAFT of the Statement to be issued at the end of the Conference was handed out. Though we still have a week to go, it gives us a much better sense of how it is envisioned that everything will “fit” together.

Perhaps a comparison with Lambeth 1998 would be helpful. Ten years ago we were given a reading list, along with scholarly papers prepared for us to study before coming to the Conference. Most of the Bishops were then divided into four main sub-sections, where we worked on Reports on broad major subjects. The only thing from that Conference that is much remembered is “Resolution 1:10,” which declared homosexuality to be “incompatible with holy scripture.” It was, and ever has been, the most controversial thing to come out of any Lambeth Conference.

But, interestingly enough, the REPORT from the sub-section on Human Sexuality, composed by Bishops from across the entire spectrum of opinion, and from every sector of the globe, was UNANIMOUSLY agreed to by all the members of the sub-section that worked on it. It outlined four major positions that faithful Christians take (or took, as of that moment) regarding their understanding of sexuality, and it was very carefully balanced and nuanced.
Archbishop George Carey invested a great deal of personal effort to keep sexuality from being the defining issue of the Conference (“If it becomes that,” he said, “we will have failed.”) We failed.

The “Global South” largely felt that the “Progressive West” was demanding a new understanding of sexuality, and it struck back with a vengeance. The Resolution was amended and amended, each time becoming more strident, and when the vote was taken it was 526 in favor, 70 against, with 45 abstentions. I think it is fair to say that each “side” believed it had been ambushed by the other.

To a significant extent, the American and Canadian churches have ignored the Resolution (it was five years to the day after passing it that our General Convention confirmed the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire!), and we have been trying to figure out how to resolve the contradictions involved in all of this ever since.

This time around, the Bible Study discussions flow into the Indaba groups, and they are somewhat related to the various Plenary sessions, as well. But, rather than scholarly and/or committee reports, what we will issue as a Statement of the Conference will be largely composed of a kind of composite “snapshot” of what the world’s Anglican Bishops believe regarding a wide variety of topics and issues as of summer 2008.

If an opinion is voiced once or twice in an Indaba group it probably will not make it into the “snapshot.” But if it comes up half a dozen or more times, in as many different groups, it almost certainly will.

As I reported earlier, all of this is in the category of “building relationships,” and getting to know each other in prayer, Bible Study, and “sharing.” It is also, clearly, laying a foundation for addressing (again!) the major remaining issues of the Conference: sexuality and the development of an Anglican Covenant.

This afternoon we had the second major “Hearing” on what is being envisioned by the “Windsor Continuation Group” as to “how we get from here to there” (“there” being the restoration of trust, fellowship, and communion). I need to quote to you at length from what we were given.

PLEASE NOTE: whether this survives at all, let alone in anything recognizably like what I am about to type, is anything but certain. There remains a great deal of objection to even having a Covenant, let alone to some of the specifics.

Nevertheless, here is what was handed out:

* The Windsor Report sets out requests for three moratoria in relation to the public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions, the consecration to the episcopate of those living in partnered gay relationships and the cessation of cross border interventions.
* There have been different interpretations of the sense in which “moratorium” was used in the Windsor Report. Our understanding is that moratorium refers to both future actions and is also retrospective: that is that it requires the cessation of activity. This necessarily applies to practices that may have already been authorized as well as proposed for authorization in the future.
* The request for moratorium applies in this way to the complete cessation of (a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, (b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and (c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction.
* The three moratoria have been requested several times: Windsor (2004); Dromantine (2005); Dar es Salaam (2007) and the requests have been less than wholeheartedly embraced on all sides.
* The failure to respond presents us with a situation where if the three moratoria are not observed, the communion is likely to fracture. The patterns of action currently embraced with the continued blessings of same-sex unions and of interventions could lead to irreparable damage.
* The call for the three moratoria on these issues relates to their controversial nature. This poses the serious question of what response should be made to those who act contrary to the moratorium during the Covenant process and who should make a response.

The WCG goes on to propose the swift formation of a “Pastoral Forum” – noting that it is essentially the same thing as a number of previously proposed bodies, a “Council of Advice” (Windsor), a “Panel of Reference” (Dromantine), a “Pastoral Council” (Dar es Salaam), and the Statement from the American House of Bishops (September 2007) acknowledging a “useful role for communion wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight.”

The WCG proposes that the President of the Forum should be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would also appoint its episcopal chair, and its members, including members of the Instruments of Communion and a constituency “representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole.”

It says the Forum should be empowered to act quickly and decisively, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who would work closely with the ABC in the exercise of his ministry.

“The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.”

I found this sentence particularly heartening: “We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in The Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own Province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion.”

And, finally: “The proliferation of ad hoc episcopal and archepiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion. We recommend that the Pastoral Forum develop a scheme in which existing ad hoc jurisdictions could be held ‘in trust’ in preparation for their reconciliation within their proper Provinces.”

Will any of this actually be put into place? Will any of it matter? Only time will tell. But, two weeks into our time in England, things are becoming interesting.

With warmest regards in our Lord,

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

Faith and Ministry. The overall theme of the month-long meeting is “The Renewal of the Church,” with particular reference to faith, ministry and church union. Subordinate topics for consideration range widely, from the proper relationship between Christianity and secularism to such purely ecclesiastical issues as Prayer Book reform. There is ample opportunity for bishops to raise new issues. Last week, for example, Archbishop Donald Coggan of York formally proposed that women be admitted to the priesthood””an idea that was shouted down by his peers.

This year’s conference has streamlined some of the more somnolent procedures of the past. Instead of doing all their business in plenary sessions, the bishops have been assigned to 33 subcommittees, which are responsible for drafting resolutions prior to debate. They have also adopted an innovation of the Second Vatican Council: 25 theological experts are available for consultation by the bishops.

Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference are not binding on the 19 member churches, but they are intended to express the consensus of the Communion.

Read it all.

…there are signs that this westernized Indaba is being taken seriously by the bishops and they are gaining much from it. Far from avoiding difficult conversations, many of them report that they are actually having them. Good on them.

My questions remain about the outcome, and the actual reportage of Indaba, and the writing down of some kind of final statement. I remain convinced that the process is built for manipulation by a bureaucracy which lazily wants the crisis to be downplayed and the fuss just to go away. I can’t see that without resolution, amendments and votes, the final document can be anything but descriptive of the process, and the diversity of viewpoints in the communion.

More importantly, I see no sign that the bishops and the conference have any desire to face the biggest elephant in their midst. I’m not referring to issues of homosexuality, and authority directly, but to the glaringly obvious fact that a quarter of the bishops in the Anglican Communion are actually missing. This raises at least two urgent questions for the bishops who are in Canterbury. How can this Lambeth Conference be an Instrument of Unity when so many have gone AWOL? What steps must the Anglican Communion take to ensure that the next time they meet these absent bishops are present?

Read it all.

More than 80 percent of Anglicans lived in Britain in 1900, in contrast to a mere 1 percent in sub-Saharan Africa–a figure that had risen only to 8 percent by 1970. Now, a majority (55 percent) of the world’s Anglicans live in sub-Saharan Africa. British Anglicans now constitute one-third of the world total, and the Church of England notes that low church participation makes the figure for great Britain deceivingly high.

–World Christian database, research version, May 2008, as cited by Christian Century, July 29, 2008, page 14

Holding a future Lambeth Conference in the south would help the Church better understand the diverse contexts that many members of the Communion emerge from and prevent over-simplified conclusions about geography and theology.

What about the host? What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, the first among equals, who this year and in years past addresses the gathered bishops from his throne in the Cathedral in Canterbury? Could he still be the first among equals if the next Lambeth were in, say, Johannesburg or Madras?

There is no reason that the Archbishop of Canterbury couldn’t maintain his position as “first among equals” and an instrument of unity in his person while playing the role of guest rather than host.

By dislocating the Lambeth Conference from its English moorings, this important gathering could rid itself of some of its colonial vestiges and relocate closer to the heart of the current Anglican Communion. A change of this magnitude would take some imagination on the part of bishops gathered this week in Kent, but as modern leaders in a religious tradition that produced poets and artists like John Donne, William Blake, and Julian of Norwich, such vision would not be impossible.

Read it all.

In the United States, those who disagree with …[the Presiding Bishop] have found themselves excluded: One hundred priests have been deposed and 200 congregations have been exiled from their church buildings for not accepting the liberal Episcopal Church’s position.

For the 230 bishops who declined to attend the Lambeth Conference, the problem is that the American church has blessed people in their disobedience to God. In response to a plea by English evangelical bishops to attend the conference, representatives of these conservative bishops wrote that some of their co-religionists in the United States who had objected to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson “have been charged with abandonment of communion. Their congregations have either forfeited or are being sued for their properties by the very bishops with whom you wish us to share Christian family fellowship for three weeks.”

“To do this is an assault on our consciences and our hearts. How can we explain to our church members that while we and they are formally out of communion” with the Episcopal Church, “we at the same time live with them at the Lambeth Conference as though nothing had happened? This would be hypocrisy.”

The fundamental question is this: What allows for religious freedom and religious choice? An Anglican faith that adheres to the teaching of Scripture, calls people to choose to follow Jesus and all that he teaches, welcomes all to hear the gospel but is clear where the boundaries are. Or a so-called inclusive Anglicanism that seeks to improve on the Bible, observes no boundaries, and claims to welcome all – as long as you do not disagree.

Read it all. One wonders how many so-called “first-world” bishops at Lambeth could summarize why those who are not there are not present in words the latter would agree with. Say it again after me, it is not a boycott:

We, as the Bishops and elected leaders of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) are deeply grateful for the Jerusalem Declaration. It describes a hopeful, global Anglican future, rooted in scripture and the authentic Anglican way of faith and practice. We joyfully welcome the words of the GAFCON statement that it is now time ”˜for the federation currently known as the Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates Council.’

The intention of the CCP Executive Committee is to petition the Primates Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primate’s Council.

We accept the call to build the Common Cause Partnership into a truly unified body of Anglicans. We are committed to that call. Over the past months, we have worked together, increasing the number of partners and authorizing committees and task groups for Mission, Education, Governance, Prayer Book & Liturgy, the Episcopate, and Ecumenical Relations. The Executive Committee is meeting regularly to carry forward the particulars of this call. The CCP Council will meet December 1”“3, 2008.

Read it all.

1. A failure to address the issue

Any covenant document has to recognise fully the mischief it seeks to address. This document makes no mention of the crisis which has generated the call for such a remedy, which is a crisis of obedience to Scripture. Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the ”˜instruments of Communion’ (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future solution is problematic in the extreme. Put bluntly, this covenant will not allow the real issues to be addressed.

2. An illegitimate notion of autonomy

The understanding of the individual Churches of the Communion throughout this document is fatally ambiguous. The language of autonomy in communion is introduced in 3.1.2., but there has been no justification produced for this concept in the preceding sections. More seriously this language is unqualified and so fails to distinguish between matters on which Scripture is silent (and where there may be legitimate liberty and indeed diversity) and matters on which Scripture has spoken definitively (and where autonomy is therefore a euphemism for sin). Our obedience to Scripture and our responsibility to each other must significantly qualify all talk of ”˜autonomy’ with reference to any congregation, diocese, province or, indeed, the Communion itself.

3. No biblical theology

The entire document, and particularly the statement concerning ”˜the inheritance of faith’ in paragraph 1, is detached from the Scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin, which Churches in the Communion have seen realised. The principal concerns of Scripture are ignored as the document concentrates on matters which are dependent and consequential upon those concerns. The unity of Christians flows out of the redeeming work of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit. Any attempt to generate or sustain such unity on our own terms and by our own institutional efforts without reference to this prior and determinative reality must be judged sub-biblical.

Read it all.

Via Email:

The Global Anglican Future Conference Theological Resource Group (TRG) has published a response to the St Andrew’s Covenant. www.gafcon.org/index.php This has the authority of that group and is the substantive response from GAFCON.

There are two major concerns about the proposed covenant. First, what will it contain? Will it have sufficient commitment to the doctrinal and ethical commitments of the traditional Anglican formularies? Will it have sufficient material on the process of maintaining unity on essentials?

Secondly, the current St Andrew’s draft focuses the action away from the Primates to the Anglican Consultative Council. In every case except the Church of England, the Primates are the elected heads of their churches. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 asked for enhanced responsibility to be given to the Primates on matters of contention. The St Andrew’s draft reverses this direction and gives responsibility to the ACC for approval of the final text of the covenant and as arbiter of inclusion in the Communion.

Thirdly, it should be noted that even though the Lambeth Conference is an instrument of communion, it has no decision-making role in finalizing the covenant. Rather it is the ACC that will be the final arbiter of what the covenant will contain.

Further, no bishop here has the authority to accept the covenant on behalf of anyone else: such decisions belong to the provinces, their synods and house of bishops.

The briefing paper that was posted on the GAFCON website, on which Dr Andrew Goddard focuses his major critique www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm, has now been removed. It was purely a resource paper provided for the TRG comparing the St Andrews Draft with earlier theological reflection. This reflection was incorrectly identified for which apologies are made for the confusion caused.

The response of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group is to the St Andrew’s Draft and the GAFCON Theological Resource group welcomes comments on the substance of their response to office [at] gafcon [dot] org.

Watch it all.

The first and irrefutable conclusion that must be drawn from these two documents is the shocking inadequacy of GAFCON’s theological resource group and wider leadership. To have produced a briefing paper claiming to summarise the changes between the Nassau and St Andrew’s draft covenants but actually comparing the St Andrew’s draft to a quite different document unrelated to the covenant (and which many of the GAFCON team were involved in writing) is an astonishing error. That nobody in the group (or among the GAFCON leadership which released it) realised that the claimed removals from the Nassau draft were therefore all fraudulent suggests an inexcusable level of ignorance about the covenant process on the part of all those involved in writing and then disseminating this briefing paper to the wider Communion. The authorship is unclear but either we have a very small number of people writing what claims to be a representative document commended by seven Primates or we have a large group which failed to spot this basic and serious flaw. I am not sure which of these options is I would prefer to be reality. Unfortunately this all gives the strong impression that the conclusion ”“ “the new document is severely flawed and should be repudiated” ”“ was already decided upon on other grounds.

The second conclusion is that the other response of the same team is therefore seriously discredited, especially if it was put together on the basis of the briefing paper or by people who had seen the briefing paper and not realised its basic error.

Read it carefully and read it all. It is very disappointing that there was a basic documentation mistake of this magnitude–KSH.