DR. MOUNEER ANIS: ”˜RECOVERING THE WORD OF GOD FOR THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION’

Bishop Lawrence:
Well I am jealous for his time so I will be very brief. Archbishop Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Bishop of the Diocese of Egypt in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, was called by God from being a physician of the body to being a physician of the soul. And if there is any one that has his finger on the pulse of the Anglican Communion better than Archbishop Mouneer Anis I do not know him. Thank God he also has his stethoscope on the heart of the Anglican Communion. I just hope he finds the medicine of eternity soon that he can administer to it, but he will minister a healing balm to us today because God has gifted him as a physician of the soul for those of us who profess and call ourselves Christians and God has grafted into this thing we call Anglicanism. So I am not going to take any more of his time. Archbishop Mouneer:

[Applause]
Archbishop Mouneer Anis:
Thank you Bishop Mark for your welcome and your warm welcome here for me and Nancy. We enjoyed the time with you when you came and visited us and led the retreat for the clergy in the desert of Egypt and we enjoyed also Allison talking to the wives of the clergy. And for those who don’t know, the Diocese of South Carolina and the Diocese of Egypt are companion dioceses, so it is a special joy to be here in South Carolina.

I know some of you asked many questions about the bombings in Alexandria, and I want to tell you that this is the second year it happened. The first year it happened on the 6th of January 2010 as people were [Coptic Orthodox] coming out of their Christmas Eve service on the 6th, and a man killed eight of them by gun. And this year they were in the New Year’s Eve, just 20 minutes in 2011, and as they were coming out of the church, this bombing took place. It shaked the nation, not only the Christians, but also the very moderate Muslims as well, were very much shaken, because this is not something we are used to. We are used to being a very peaceful country. People can go round without any fear. But the threats that come to the church – that bombing like this is going to happen – is actually disturbing many Christians. And we ”“ I want to tell you that something good may come out of this. Many moderate Muslims condemned this attack, and they started to see the rights of the Christians and speak about the rights of the Christians. So I want you to pray that something good will come out of this.

Along the history, Egypt is famous for this shedding of blood; especially the church. In fact the church in Egypt was founded on the blood of the Martyrs. The first one of them is St. Mark himself, whose blood baptized the city of Alexandria. So pray for us, and we are not afraid. We are ready to die, for the sake of Christ, in Egypt and pray that something good will come out for the church and out of this.

When I thought of this topic ”˜Recovering the Word of God for the Anglican Communion’, I felt that I should talk about the following areas. So four areas I would like to talk about:
1. The importance of the Word of God as we see it in the Bible;
2 The importance of the Word of God as affirmed by the early Anglican Reformers in the 39 Articles and Lambeth Resolutions;
3. Where we have fallen as Anglicans; and
4. How we recover the importance of the word of God for the Anglican Communion today.

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORD OF GOD AS WE SEE IT IN THE BIBLE

The writer of the letter of Hebrews, when describing the word of God, he wrote these words:

“For the word of God is alive, active, sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” [Hebrews 4:12]

Note here that the Word of God is described as ”˜living’, ”˜active’, ”˜sharp’, ”˜it penetrates’ and ”˜it judges’.

It is living means that it continues to speak to us every day, at every age, and in every situation. It continued to speak, it is alive, it is a living word.

It is ”˜active’ and this means that it works in us, it transforms us, exactly like the yeast working in dough which causes growth. So the word of God grows growth of the church.

It is a sharp double-edged sword ”“ it is similar to the sword that comes out of the mouth of God in the Book of Revelation, you know the Book of Revelation puts this image of God with a sword coming out of his mouth. It is like this because it is the Word of God. This means that it does not change and it is decisive and honest. In Egypt we have a saying that describes the word of a person who keeps his or her word as a sword. So we say “This man – his word is like a sword.” It means he does not, or she does not, change his or her word – keeps it – he cannot say lies ”“ he speaks the truth all the time. And that is perhaps the idea about describing the Word of God as a sharp double-edged sword.

”˜It penetrates’ means that it can reach to the deepest and most hidden part of our soul and spirit.

”˜It judges’ and discerns the thoughts of our hearts. It helps us to discern, if the thoughts of our hearts are Godly or not. Jesus in the parable of the farmer sowing the seeds described the Word of God as seeds which when accepted by the good hearts brings forth fruits of eternal life. Indeed the Word of God helps us to know Jesus and his plan for our salvation.

There is an Egyptian prostitute in the 5th Century, who converted and became a hermit. Her name is Mary. She said these words: “When I think from what evils the Lord has freed me, I am nourished by incorruptible food and cover my shoulders with the hope of my salvation. I feed upon and I cover myself with the Word of God which contains all things.”

Also the Book of Acts tells us that whenever the Word of God was preached the church grew. So, it is written like this in Chapter 6:

“So the Word of God spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” [Acts 6:7]

Therefore I hope and pray that this paper would encourage all the faithful within the Anglican Communion to give the Word of God the most important place in teaching, preaching, worship, and theological studies.

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORD OF GOD AS AFFIRMED BY THE EARLY ANGLICAN REFORMERS IN THE 39 ARTICLES AND THE LAMBETH RESOLUTIONS

Now I would like to speak about the importance of the Word of God as affirmed by the Early Anglican Reformers. We all know that the Church of England, the historical mother church of the Anglican Communion played a key role in the Reformation. This role focused on making the Word of God available in languages of the people. John Wycliffe, the morning star of Reformation started the movement of translating the Scriptures into English, the language of the people, two hundred years before Martin Luther led the Reformation. It was the recovering and understanding of the Scriptures that opened the eyes of the Reformers to see what was wrong in the practices of the church. Today the Scriptures are available in many languages and millions of copies are printed every year.

However, we need to recover its centrality and authority within our Anglican Communion in order to see what is wrong in the life and practice of the church and how we can correct it. One may ask: ”˜Are we under God’s authority or the authority of the Scriptures?’ Of course we are under God’s authority; that is why we take his words as authoritative commandments which guide our lives and reveal him and his mind to us.

My brothers and sisters, we need another Reformation within the Anglican Communion. Isaiah wrote these words:

“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and His glory appears over you.” [Isaiah 60:1-2]

I read these words and hear them as if they are for our Communion today.

When we look at our history, we find that the Word of God was at the heart of the Anglican Reformation. The authority of the Word was put higher than any other human authority, such as the Popes. Reformers like Thomas Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and William Tyndale were ready to be burned at the stake in order not to go against the Word of God. Cranmer in particular was so keen for ordinary people to read the Bible. For this reason the first and the second book of Common Prayer were very much Bible-centered. He also encouraged the people to read the Bible as he wrote these words:

“Here may all manner of persons, men, women, young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen and all manner of persons of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things that they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning Almighty God as also concerning themselves and all others.”

Richard Hooker came to affirm that the Scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation. He also stated that Christ is the focus of the Bible message. In Hooker’s teaching, Scripture comes first, reason comes second, and the voice of the church, the tradition comes third. In other words, people need to examine human reason and traditions of the church in the light of the Word of God.

This understanding helps the Church to make its message and mission relevant to the time and culture in which she lives, while remaining faithful to the Biblical truth. This faithfulness to the Biblical truth led the Anglican Communion to make its motto: ”˜The truth shall make you free’. What a great motto. We are set free when we know Jesus through the Word of God. However, Jesus puts a condition for receiving and enjoying this freedom. He said:

“If you abide in my Word, then you are truly my disciples and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free.” [John 8:31-32]

So it is not just a motto on the air, it is something linked with abiding with the Word of God and knowing him as our saviour. I want to come back to this point later, but here I want to affirm that the source of this truth is the Word of God.

As we read the 39 Articles of Religion we see that Scripture is quoted to affirm what Anglicans believe. Practices that are not supported by Scripture are rejected. For example Article Six states:

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not be required of any man.”

Some who seem to want to reform the Anglican Communion by accommodating it to culture have neglected this Article by proposing that something be required in addition to Scripture, namely the submission to supposedly popular norms of modern culture, especially regarding sexuality. But see the Article itself, it says “whatsoever” ”“ it is not read ”˜therein’ ”“ it is “whatsoever” in the Scripture. If it is not written in the Scripture, it cannot be accepted as a norm; is not to be imposed on the Anglican faithful.

Article Twenty says this:

“The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”

So the church has the authority to interpret, but the church does not have the authority to change the Word or to interpret in a way that is different from the Word of God.

When we look at Lambeth Resolutions, we find many references to the vital importance of the Word of God in forming us as Anglicans. At this point I will share with you some of these Resolutions.

Lambeth Conference 1888, Resolution 11.1 ”“ “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as “containing all things necessary to salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.”

Lambeth Conference 1920: Resolution 9 and Article VI – “We believe that the visible unity of the Church will be found to involve the Whole-hearted acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as the record of God’s revelation of himself to man and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith”.

Reading this resolution in particular one would say that is the very reason we are not united in the Anglican Communion because we are different; our position is different in regard to the Word of God.

Lambeth Conference 1930: Resolution 3 says this: “We affirm the supreme and unshaken authority of the Holy Scriptures as presenting the truth concerning God and the spiritual life in its historical setting and in its progressive revelation both throughout the Old Testament and in the New”

Lambeth Conference 1958 Resolution 3 “This conference affirms that Jesus Christ lives in his Church through the Holy Spirit according to his promise and that the Church is therefore both guardian and interpreter..”

And it is speaking about ”˜the’ Church, it means that the whole church of Christ, not only the Anglicans. In fact, it is the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics and the others, – “The Church” ”“ “The Body of Christ”

“..is therefore both guardian and interpreter of Holy Scripture; nevertheless the Church may teach nothing as ”˜necessary for eternal salvation’ but what may be concluded and proved by the Scriptures.”

The interpreter, the whole Church, does not place herself above the Scriptures. The Scriptures interpret us, rather than we interpret the Scriptures. We are never above the Scriptures, we interpret, we are the servants ”“ who interpret, who read together, who interpret together.

Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution III.5.b. “In agreement with the Lambeth Quadrilateral and in solidarity with the Lambeth Conference of 1888 affirm that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation and are for us the rule and ultimate standard of faith and practice.”

I am so glad that 1998 affirmed 1888 – the same thing.

The Lambeth Conference 2008 – did not make any resolutions. [laughter, lots of laughter] but recorded a summary of the bishops’ discussion in what was called ”˜Indaba’ ”“ and NO ONE knows what is the meaning of Indaba [lots of laughter] except Africans, [laughter] like me [laughter]. Indaba means to listen to two sides and make a decision, not just listen and listen and listen and listen [laughter]. This means that what is recorded does not have the same moral authority like the other Lambeth Conferences Resolutions.

Lambeth Conference 2008 Section G in the Summary, [pg. 134], in this summary, we read this: “God’s Living Word, incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth and revealed in Holy Scripture, challenges and transforms us in ways that can be full of joy and at other times quite unsettling, even as our context influences our interpretation of Holy Scripture. We affirm that the Scripture also addresses our contexts with both judgment and consolation, with conviction and with grace. The Word of God has always held a primary and cherished place in the churches of the Anglican Communion. So shall it always be”

The Anglican Covenant includes many sections worth mentioning here, especially Section 1.2.2: “to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the catholic tradition.”

In regard to the interpretation of the Scriptures and the authority of the Church, the Lambeth Conference 1978 Resolution 11 says this: “The Conference advises member churches not to take action regarding issues which are of concern to the whole Anglican Communion without consultation with a Lambeth Conference or with the Episcopate through the Primates’ committee and requests the Primates to initiate a study of the nature of authority within the Anglican Communion”

Lambeth Conference 1998 Res III.6.b states this: “That the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of Archbishop of Canterbury includes among its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within Provinces and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies”.

3. WHERE WE HAVE FALLEN AS ANGLICANS

This means my brothers and sisters that within the Anglican Communion we already have what we may call, we may call, a Conciliar body which is the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of bishops and Primates. This body represents all the faithful within the Communion and is capable by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in consultation with ecumenical partners to express the mind of the Communion regarding the interpretation of controversial issues.

Unfortunately, the Lambeth Conference resolutions are not binding. In other words the Lambeth Conference as well as the Primates Meeting does not have the executive authority of a Conciliar Council. It sounds from all I mentioned – all these Resolutions and Articles – that the Anglican Communion is a very Biblical Communion founded on the Word of God, formed by it, and our practices are examined by it. It also gives the impression that we are committed to read and interpret the Scripture together as Communion and with our sister churches in order to define the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures. But the question is: ”˜Are we really doing this?’ I honestly think that we are far from it. In fact if we followed what we and our predecessors decided since 1888 we would not be an impaired and dysfunctional Communion today.

4. HOW DO WE RECOVER THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORD OF GOD FOR THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION TODAY?

How can we recover from this state of dysfunction? How do we recover the Word of God as our ultimate standard of faith? How can new Anglican generations grow in a healthy, strong, united and effective Communion?

We find the answer in Christ’s Word to the church of Ephesus:

“Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent, and do the first works or else I will come to you quickly and I will remove the lampstand out of this place except if you repent.” [Revelation 2:5-8]

So Repent is repeated twice here. So we as an Anglican Communion need to do three things:
[1] Remember from where we have fallen, and
[2] we need to Repent; and
[3] we need to do things we did at first when the Anglican or the Church of England started at the time of Thomas Cranmer.

[1] Remember from where we have fallen
First we need to know from where we have fallen. We have fallen when some of the churches of the Communion lost confidence in the Word of God and its authority. This leads to neglecting the study of the Bible and the Biblical teaching which further leads to Biblical illiteracy. This Biblical illiteracy produced a generation of clergy and laity in those churches who do not believe in the essentials of faith, like: the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, crucifixion, the resurrection, salvation by faith, and eternal life, as defined in the three creeds: the Apostles creed, the Nicene creed and the Athanasian creed.

For some, the Bible became an ancient book of wisdom, like other ancient religious books. The Scripture become like a hermeneutical supermarket [laughter] where you pick what you like and leave out what you don’t like. The motto which I mentioned at the beginning ”˜The truth shall make you free’ became meaningless, because Jesus Christ became a truth among many truths, not ”˜THE TRUTH’. Revelation ends with a harsh judgment on those who add or those who take away from the Word of God.

We have also fallen when we lost the Conciliar concept that characterized the early church and the early days of the Anglican Communion. The individualistic and hedonistic spirit of our world today has penetrated the Communion deeply. This encouraged some churches to interpret the Scriptures without listening to and consulting with the other churches within the Communion. The interpretations that are produced by Lambeth Conferences have only a moral authority and are not binding.

In fact the trace of Conciliar concept that was there in the Lambeth Conferences of bishops and Primates was diluted and almost completely lost at Lambeth 2008.

The absence of conciliarity and the individualistic interpretation of the Scriptures led the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to take decisions in the light of what is prevalent and accepted in the culture; not in the light of the teaching of the Scriptures and what is accepted by the rest of the Communion. In other words these provinces allowed their cultures to influence the interpretation of the Scripture instead of allowing the Scripture to address the culture. In other words the contemporary cultural norms are given more authority than the Scripture.

In order to be fair, I must be self-critical too. Some churches in the Global South, especially in my continent of Africa, also suffer from shallowness of Biblical knowledge; not because of lack of confidence in the Scriptures, like in the West, nor in the intentional neglect of it, but because some of these fast-growing churches in Africa do not have the resources to equip enough clergy and Bible teachers in order to meet the needs of the church growth. Moreover there is more focus on praise and worship rather than the teaching of the Scriptures. This has made Africa vulnerable to the emerging heretical sects like the ”˜prosperity gospel’, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism. It is also worth mentioning that the Bible is not as yet available in some tribal languages even within my own diocese.

[2] We need to Repent
Secondly, having said all this, we can clearly say that the need of repentance is absolutely crucial. Consider the great need of resources in Africa and the huge amount of money spent in lawsuits between churches in the United States. Indeed we need to repent.

[3] We need to do things we did at first
How do we recover the Word of God for our Anglican Communion today? After we repent, we need to do the things we did at first when the Anglican Communion started.

We need to regain the trust in the Scripture, as it contains everything necessary for salvation. In order to have this trust back, we have to be open to the work of the Holy Spirit that inspired the people of God to write the Scripture in the first place. We also need to prayerfully read, study and make every effort to live out God’s Word.

It is important to start Biblical literacy programs, and I want to say this is very, very important. It is important to start Biblical literacy programs for all ages in every province. Let us start with our children in Sunday Schools. The new generations widely use computers and the Internet in education, communication and entertainment and therefore and therefore it is necessary to develop computerized programs and curricula that can help the young people to learn the Word of God in a way that is interesting to them.

The use of drama as a way of teaching the Bible is very effective in areas where computer technology is not available or where illiteracy is a problem. When Temple Gardiner came to Egypt in 1800 and he found that there are many people who are illiterate – he wanted to teach them the Bible. He started to think, and write plays and drama to dramatize the Bible and that was a very important tool at that time.

We need to use the gifts of our laity and train them as Bible teachers so that they may teach others. It is worth mentioning that the Diocese of Singapore already started a few months ago a very ambitious program to teach lay people to teach the Bible.

We also need to support the existing Biblically-sound theological schools and establish new ones in order to equip orthodox church leaders.

It is also important to translate the Bible in order to make it available to the tribes which do not have the Bible in their own language.

The Anglican Communion needs to give the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting a Conciliar authority in matters of faith and order, including the area of interpretation of the Scriptures. The principle of: ”˜What affects all, should be decided by all’ is crucial to avoid further crisis.

The Windsor Report, Section B, speaks about Authority of Scripture. It says this:

“The current crisis which constitutes a call to the whole Anglican Communion to re-evaluate the ways in which we have read, heard, studied and digested the Scripture. We can no longer be content to drop random texts into arguments, imagining that the point is thereby proved, or indeed to sweep away sections of the New Testament as irrelevant to today’s world, imagining that problems are thereby solved. We need mature study, wise and prayerful discussion and a joint commitment to hearing and obeying God as he speaks in Scripture, to discovering more of the Jesus Christ to whom all authority is committed and to being open to the fresh wind of the Spirit who inspired Scripture in the first place. If our present difficulties force us to read and learn together from Scripture in new ways, they will not have been without profit.”

My brothers and sisters, I am aware that during the current crisis within the Anglican Communion it will be extremely difficult to develop a joint effort across the Communion in order to carry out these suggestions to read and interpret together – because there is no trust, at all! What is happening caused no trust. And already provinces are taking actions and going away completely from the norm of the Anglican tradition. So it is very difficult to do this.

We have to first sort out the crisis in order to regain the trust between the churches of the Communion and its Instruments. However, the Global South and other orthodox dioceses all over the world should start today if we want to rescue and revive our beloved Communion.

Finally, I would like to remind myself, and you, with the words of the Apostle Paul to the Apostle Timothy his disciple:

“What you heard from me keep as a pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you ”“ guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” [2 Timothy 1:13-14]

Thank you so much.
[Applause]

[Our thanks to a faithful T19 reader who provided this for us–KSH].
Video here thanks to Kevin Kallsen at Anglican TV
See also: Q & A with Archbishop Mouneer Anis – Video and Transcript here

The Primates who have turned down the invitation to this week’s Primates’ Meeting because of developments in The Episcopal Church are still committed to the Anglican Communion.

In an interview today with BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence programme, Anglican Communion Secretary General Canon Kenneth Kearon told presenter William Crawley that at Communion meetings there are always a number of participants who cannot come for a variety of reasons including health or diary commitments.

Read it all.

The biennial meeting of Anglican primates will take place Tuesday in Dublin despite the absence of about a quarter of the senior Anglican church leaders, most of whom are boycotting the presence of the presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church.

As many as ten of the leaders of the Communion’s 38 provinces will not attend the meeting because of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori, who represents the Episcopal Church and a supporter of gay bishops and same-sex marriage.

Read it all and note that, As Mouneer Anis said in Charleston at the Mere Anglicanism Conference, “this is not a boycott.”

Important update: You may now find a full transcript of the talk here.

See also: Q & A with Archbishop Mouneer Anis – Video and Transcript here

Unless and until there is unequivocal commitment to honour the agreed basis of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and implement the decisions of previous Primates’ Meetings (2005, 2007, 2009) expressed in the respective Communiqués, especially that of Dar es Salem 2007, it will only lead to further erosion of the credibility of the Primates’ Meeting and accentuate our failure to honour the work already done by them.

What is most disturbing and difficult is that given the intractable miry situation the Communion is already in and being further driven into, there was hardly any timely and intentional prior consultation and collegial engagement of all concerned (or at least as many as reasonably possible) in preparing for the Meeting to ensure certain degree of significant and principally legitimate outcome to hold and move the Communion together. In light of the critical importance of the Meeting, the preparations are gravely inadequate. As it stands, the Meeting is almost pre-determined to end up as just another gathering that again cannot bring about effective ecclesial actions, despite the precious time, energy and monetary resources that Primates and Provinces have invested in attending the Meeting. This, most Provinces could scarcely afford. With the disappointingly lack of serious transparent planning and leadership beforehand to prepare the Primates for a genuine meeting of minds and hearts to face the very real and obvious issues before us, it will be strenuous to expect any significant, meaningful, credible and constructive outcome of the Dublin Meeting.

Read it all (my emphasis).

The 38 primates, representing Anglicans in 164 countries, will be asked to share their thoughts on two questions: What do you think is the most pressing challenge or issue facing the Anglican Communion at this time? What do you think is the most pressing challenge or issue facing your own province?

Rather than seeing this process as an attempt to sidestep the issue of sexuality, which has deeply divided Anglicans, Archbishop Hiltz sees it was a way forward. “If there’s any hope of some sense of renewed relationships with one another, it’s through conversations like these,” he said.

Reports that some primates with more conservative theological views are planning to boycott the meeting “does nothing to model for the church what it means to try and live with difference,” he added. “To simply say, ”˜I refuse to come’ is anything but exemplary of the office and ministry to which we are called.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

You may find the agenda here; we appreciate your prayers.

Please note the William Mckeachie piece on the Conference here also. It begins as follows:

Mere Anglicanism is all about witnessing to the God who, amidst all the ups and downs of church history, has called us — whether as laity or clergy, whether as Episcopalians or members of some other Anglican entity, whether locally or globally — to renew our witness to the One who gave us the Gospel and who across the centuries has providentially provided for the Anglican Way of faithfulness to that Gospel….

The Primates’ Meeting must be that place where the integrity of the Instrument is worked through. If one does not attend the Dublin gathering, it remains the case that the Primates as individual leaders and as a body must propose and resolve how they will gather and do their work. Physical attendance may not be necessary at the month’s end and it is not going to happen anyway. But it remains the case that the composition and good working of the Primates as a Meeting, as a council, must be addressed by the Primates. How will they do this?

Read it all.

There are no plans to cancel the meeting of Anglican Church leaders in Dublin this month, despite a boycott by up to a quarter of the primates, a senior Anglican has confirmed.

Up to ten of the leaders of the Anglican Communion’s 38 provinces have said they won’t attend the biennial meeting because of the presence of Katharine Jefferts-Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopalian Church of the United States and a supporter of gay bishops and same-sex marriage.

Read it all.

Unlike some rites for blessing same-sex couples, the rite from Massachusetts repeatedly invoked the language and theology of marriage, occasionally revising the language of the Book of Common Prayer (1979).

“We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of these women in Holy Matrimony,” said the liturgy authorized and celebrated by Bishop Shaw. “Holy Scripture tells us that all love is from God, and the commitment of marriage signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and the Church.”

The rite also invoked marriage with a reading from the opinion by Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health.

Read it all.

…the issue goes beyond an interchange of views. What has happened is that TEC has demonstrated repeatedly an incapacity or unwillingness to deal with the views of the rest of the Communion with actual Christian responsibility. Such responsibility is assumed in council and by respecting the decisions of council.

TEC will do this on several bases: Communion councils have no legislative authority, she says, and therefore do not require adherence; majority votes by global South patriarchs are intrinsically undemocratic, and so should not be granted power; the Kingdom of God favors diverse viewpoints, and so uniform actions in the Communion are actually unfaithful. But the main reason TEC gives for not deferring to the decisions of the Communion’s representative bodies is that she is being “prophetic”, and therefore is being called by God quite precisely to oppose and subvert these decisions.
The self-given prophetic mantle is a claim that is difficult to argue against, by definition. But it is worth noting that the convenience of this difficulty is itself a major part of the problem in the Communion: TEC has adopted a self-identity that cannot be questioned and overturned, and thereby she has become impervious to all reason. This is not just a matter of style, as though the point is “let’s all tone down our rhetoric” ”“ a suggestion one hears a good bit, as if talking more quietly would solve our problems. No: at issue here is that TEC has laid out a way of approaching disagreement that brooks no compromise, and therefore makes impossible constructive engagement altogether. On this matter, I commend a fine essay by Cathleen Kaveny in the recent volume Intractable Disputes about the Natural Law: Alisdair MacIntyre and his Critics (Notre Dame, 2009). Kaveny, hardly a right-wing shill, ably points out how reasoned moral discourse in America especially has been utterly eviscerated of common avenues of engagement largely because of “prophetic” commitments to ideological fixities that finally amount to self-blinding.

But there is more to this prophetic self-designation: its effect of moral intransigence is simply contrary to the specifically Christian vocation of deferring to the Body, a vocation that asks that we “not insist on our own way” (1 Cor. 13:5), and “count others as better than ourselves” (Philippians 2;3)….

Read it all.

Speaking on Friday, he said that his intervention was not prompted by pressure from any individual, “but by my conviction to work for the unity of this communion”.

He said that he feared that some of the Primates had “not actually consulted properly” before announcing their intention to boycott the meeting. There was “a huge desire” among “ordinary members” of the Church of Nigeria for the Communion to stay together, he said.

Responding to the suggestion made by the Primates that “the current text” of the Anglican Covenant is “fatally flawed”, Dr Idowu-Fearon said: “If those Primates believe they have a superior wisdom than the collective wisdom of those who produced the Covenant, let them meet and present their wisdom and not start throwing tantrums.”

Read it all.

In short when communion is not sustained by a central juridical authority but by mutual recognition and submission within the body of Christ, there must be a means of dissent that coheres with these formative commitments. There must also be a means of addressing dissent that retains communion between a dissenting province and the Communion as a whole. Ecclesial disobedience as set forth above provides both an instrument of dissent and a response that prevents communion from lapsing into constantly dividing segments.

How are mutually recognized forms of belief, practice and worship to be sustained within a communion that does not have and does not want a centralized juridical structure? Given Anglicanism’s commitment to locally adapted expression of Christian belief and practice, in a world of competing nationalisms a covenant based upon mutual recognition and mutual subjection within the body of Christ is the only way I see to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, a shared understanding of dissent within a covenant relation must be part of the way in which the Communion sustains its common life. Apart from such an understanding, those who dissent will have no wisdom about the proper way to express their dissent, the Instruments and provinces of the Communion will have no wisdom about how to respond, and the Communion as a whole will inevitably devolve into a federation or (worse) a host of fragments that once formed a remarkable example of catholic Christianity.

To return to the beginning of this essay, the Archbishop of Canterbury, TEC’s Presiding Bishop, the ACO and the Primates will all be involved in the upcoming meeting in Ireland. Whether they admit to it or not, the question of dissent within a communion of churches will rest just under the surface of all their conversations. One can only hope and pray that the issue raised in this essay, the nature of ecclesiastical dissent, will rise to the surface of their conversations and receive the sort of attention that will allow the Anglican Communion to retain its identity, its unity and its integrity.

More concretely, the issue is this. What steps can the Primates take when they meet to bring the question of dissent out in the open where it belongs? There is an answer to this question, and it involves all the players that will come to Dublin. First, because it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who “gathers” the Primates and because his office is the primary locus of moral authority within the communion, the answer begins with him. He has authority to set the agenda for the Primates Meeting, and he should announce publically that the issue of TEC’s dissent from the moral authority of the Instruments is on the agenda. Further, if as is rumored, the Presiding Bishop has refused a request voluntarily to withdraw, the Archbishop should employ his authority to gather and withdraw her invitation….

Read it all.

In the statement, which came out of a meeting of the GAFCON Primates’ Council in Oxford in October, but was released only on Wednesday, five Primates ”” Dr Justice Akrofi of West Africa, Dr Valentino Mokiwa of Tanzania, the Most Revd Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, the Most Revd Henry Orombi of Uganda, and Dr Eliud Wabukala of Kenya ”” say they “join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present”.

They acknowledge the Anglican Covenant is “well-intentioned” but say they “have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed”.

In response, Canon Kenneth Kearon, sec retary general of the Anglican Communion, said: “The decision whether to come remains a matter for the Primates.”

The Oxford statement also reveals that GAFCON plans to build partnerships with other denom­inations that “share their con victions”.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has rejected Africa’s call to suspend the Dublin primates meeting, a spokesman for Dr. Rowan Williams’ tells The Church of England Newspaper, and the meeting will go on as scheduled.

On Nov 17 Lambeth Palace confirmed that Dr. Williams had received a letter from CAPA chairman Archbishop Ian Earnest. This letter raised a “concern about the planning process for the Primates’ Meeting and request[ed] that it be postponed.”

“However, given the closeness of the time, and the fact that the majority of Primates have already indicated that they will attend, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not minded to postpone the meeting whose date was set two years ago,” the Lambeth Palace statement said.

Read it all.

….behind the scenes conversations between Dr. Williams and the primates remain on-going, CEN has been told. While reservations and supplies have been laid on by the ACC staff for the 38 primates and the Archbishop of York to meet at the Emmaus Conference Centre outside of Dublin, it is not clear how many primates will attend the gathering.

In 2008 Dr. Williams called the bluff of the Global South bishops and declined to honour their request to postpone the Lambeth Conference, due to their objections to the presence of the US and Canadian bishops. As a result a majority of African bishops sat out the every ten year meeting of the communion’s bishops.

In his Oct 7 letter, Dr. Williams warned the primates of the substantial “damage” to the communion a boycott of the meeting would entail. Whether he can find a synthesis between the opposing camps within the communion, offering suggestions as to ways the primates could meet together without actually having to meet together, remains unclear.

Read it all.

As regards the Primates Meeting hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury due to take place early next year, we shall be able to express ourselves but the decision to attend rests solely on the individual Archbishop.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has invited me in my capacity of CAPA Chairman to be part of a preparatory committee. He is also anxious that a small group of primates meet with him. I would like to have your opinion and thoughts about it. I wish here on behalf of all CAPA Primates to thank the Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini for supporting me during these past 3 years as CAPA Vice-Chairman. We should value his great contribution made towards CAPA. Archbishop Kolini, I will certainly miss you wise insights but you will remain for a long time in my heart as a mentor and a committed and loyal servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

May I also thank the CAPA General Secretary and the secretariat for enabling this meeting to happen.

The Bishops have given to us a mandate when we met at AABCII. I hope that as CAPA we can bring this mandate to concrete terms. We need your support as Primates. We need your involvement so that the information can reach the grassroots. Talking about grassroots, it would be unfair for us not to take into consideration the voice of the Laity. We have a women core group but it is time that our young men and women share with us their vision for the future. I therefore ask of your support to my intention in organizing a youth gathering for 2011. I intend to invite 3 young people from each Province. Giving them a voice will strengthen our role and asking them of their vision of the Church in Africa should be part of our responsibility as leaders of this present generation. I hope that we can discuss about it and take a decision.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has proposed suspending the Primates Meeting””the fourth ”˜instrument of unity’ in the Anglican Communion””in favour of holding multiple small group gatherings of like minded archbishops.

In a letter to the primates dated Oct 7, Dr. Rowan Williams suggested that given the “number of difficult conversations” and the threat of a boycott of its meetings, a regime of separate but equal facilitated small groups sessions might better serve the primates’ “diverse” perspectives and forestall the substantial “damage” to the communion a full-fledged boycott would entail.

Dr. Williams also called for a reform of the structure of the meetings, suggesting that an elected standing committee be created and the powers and responsibility of the meeting of the communion’s 38 archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators be delineated.

Lambeth Palace did not respond to a request for clarification about the Oct 7 letter, while a spokesman for the Anglican Consultative Council said it could not address the question of a potential boycott as “the content of correspondence between the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury is private.”

Read it all.

The strain caused by differences of opinion about matters of sexuality appears to be evident among primates of the world’s Anglican churches. This could affect a primates’ meeting planned for January, says the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

“There is a lot of tension within the group,” Archbishop Fred Hiltz said last Sunday in his address to the Oct. 22-25 joint meeting of the Anglican House of Bishops and the Lutheran Conference of Bishops in Montreal. Some primates seem “unwilling to come to the table with everyone present,” he said. This suggests that some primates strongly opposed to same-sex marriages would not be willing to attend with primates of more favourable or nuanced views.

Archbishop Hiltz said the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams may try to deal with this problem by arranging prior meetings of smaller groups of like-minded primates.

Read it all.

Primates from the Global South are contemplating a boycott of the next Primates’ Meeting because the US Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, will be present.

The Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest, has confirmed that he will not attend the meeting, due to take place in Dublin, 25-31 January.

Archbishop Ernest said last week that he had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the summer to convey his distress at the election in the United States of the Rt Revd Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as Bishop of Los Angeles. He had urged Dr Williams to exclude Dr Jefferts Schori from future Primates’ Meetings.

“There were conditions attached in that letter,” he said last week, “and I can confirm I will not attend if those conditions are not fulfilled.”

Read it all.

In sum, I see the Lambeth Conference as the only real continuity into the future; Canterbury as a possible, if hoped-for, resource for the future; the Primates’ Meeting as giving way to some alternative Global South-oriented gathering of episcopal leaders that can move matters forward into the future in a provisional way (which may involve several decades); and the ACC as altogether finished. And this is perhaps all the Communion needs at the moment: we are learning to be less demanding of immediate solutions; more patient with less structured relations; more open to a future that does not depend on institutional sturdiness, but on God’s provisions and leading; less trusting in an ecclesial politics of maneuver and control; more joyous in the face of the Cross and the Resurrection. And in the course of such learning, individual Anglicans and their congregations are going to be drawn into new forms of witness, ones they perhaps never imagined, in a sense more globally bonded because less tethered to structures whose strength lay in local orderings we have now outgrown.

Read it all.

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated on Sept 21 that she had received notice of the meeting, and was planning on attending. The primates of the Global South coalition will meet next month and are expected to take up the issue of whether they will attend the gathering….

The choice of Dublin as the site of Dr. Williams’ fifth primates meeting came as a surprise to some primates, who had been led to believe after the Alexandria meeting they would next gather in Central America.

Read it all (subscription required).

(ACNS) The next Primates’ Meeting of the Anglican Communion will be held in Ireland between the 25th and 31st January, 2011.

Senior bishops from Churches across the Communion will be invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams to attend the meeting taking place at the Emmaus Retreat & Conference Centre in Dublin, Ireland.
The Primates’ Meeting was established in 1978 by Archbishop Donald Coggan (101st Archbishop of Canterbury) as an opportunity for “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation” and has met regularly since then. Today it has become an important consultative meeting for Primates and Moderators and is recognised as one of the Instruments of Communion.

Recent Primates’ Meetings have been held in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in 2007 and Alexandria, Egypt in 2009.

Via email:

1. In a spirit of unity and trust, and in an atmosphere of love the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) as well as Archbishop John Chew, the Chairman of the Global South, which represents the majority of the active orthodox membership in the entire Anglican Communion, met during the 2nd All Africa Bishop’s Conference in Entebbe, Uganda. We enjoyed the fellowship and the sense of unity as we heard the Word of God and gathered around the Lord’s Table.

2. We gave thanks to God for the leadership of the Most. Rev. Ian Ernest, Archbishop of the Indian Ocean and Chairman of CAPA and for the abundant hospitality provided by the Most Rev. Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda and the entire Church of Uganda.

3. We were honored by the presence of the His Excellency General Yoweri K. Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda, for his official welcome to Uganda and for hosting an official state reception for the AABCH. We are very grateful to him for his support of the work of the Anglican Church in Uganda and for his call to stand against the alien intrusions and cultural arrogance which undermines the moral fiber of our societies. We recall his admonishment to live out the words and deeds of the Good Samaritan. We are also grateful to the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of Uganda for his presence and words of encouragement to us.

4. We were very happy and appreciated that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, accepted our invitation to attend the 2nd All Africa Bishop’s Conference. We were encouraged by his word to us. We also appreciated the opportunity to engage face-to-face with him in an atmosphere of love and respect. We shared our hearts openly and with transparency, and we have come to understand the difficulties and the pressures he is facing. He also came to understand our position and how our mission is threatened by actions which have continued in certain provinces in the Communion. We therefore commit ourselves to continuously support and pray for him and for the future of our beloved Communion.

5. We were very saddened with the recent actions of The Episcopal Church in America who went ahead and consecrated Mary Glasspool last May 2010, in spite of the call for a moratorium (1) and all the warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the 4th Encounter of the Global South.

This was a clear departure from the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion as stated in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. We are also concerned about similar progressive developments in Canada and in the U.K.

6. Being aware of the reluctance of those Instruments of Communion to follow through the recommendations of the Windsor Report (2) and taken by the Primates Meetings in Dromantine (3) and Dar es Salaam (4) we see the way ahead as follows:

A. In order to keep the ethos and tradition of the Anglican Communion in a credible way, it is obligatory of all Provinces to observe the agreed decisions and recommendations of the Windsor Report and the various communiqués of the past three Primates Meetings, especially Dar es Salaam in 2007. We as Primates of CAPA and the Global South are committed to honor such recommendations.

B. We are committed to meet more regularly as Global South Primates and take our responsibilities in regard to issues of Faith and Order. (5)

C. We will give special attention to sound theological education as we want to ensure that the future generations stand firm on the Word of God and faithfully follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

D. We are committed to network with orthodox Anglicans around the world, including Communion Partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America, in holistic mission and evangelism. Our aim is to advance the Kingdom of God especially in unreached areas.

E. We are committee to work for unity with our ecumenical partners and to promote interfaith dialogue with other faiths in order to promote a peaceful co-existence and to resolve conflicts.

F. We are committed to work for the welfare of our countries. This will involve alleviating poverty, achieving financial and economic empowerment, fighting diseases, and promoting education.

7. Finally, we are very aware of our own inadequacy and weaknesses hence we depend fully on the grace of God to achieve his purpose in the life of his church and our beloved Anglican Communion.

Footnotes:

1. The Windsor Report Section 134.1 The Episcopal church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion energies.

The Windsor Report Section 144.3 We call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorized such rites in the US and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorizations.

2. Windsor Report. Section D. 157 There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart.

3. The Communiqué of the Primates Meeting in Dromantine (2005) Section 14. Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in roder to recognize the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.

4. The Communiqué of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007. If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

5. Lambeth 1988 Resolution 18.2(a) Urges the encouragement be given to a developing collegial rule for the Primates Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.

Lambeth 1998 Resolution III.6 (a) reaffirms the Resolution 18.2(a) Of Lambeth 1988 which “urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates’ Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters”.

I believe that I have been patient and hopeful that our co-operation and listening, our reasoning and brotherly concern would have brought transformation. However it is now abundantly clear to me and to my people that the Episcopal Church has no intention of honouring any of the commitments it has made whether that be in terms of ”˜moratoriums’ or ”˜gracious restraint’. It is to my mind hell bent on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture. You have yourself been amazingly patient with TEC, we as Primates have made our position abundantly clear on occasions without number, some of us going so far as to declare broken or impaired communion with both the TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. This it seems has been to no avail, as the recent letter to the Primates from the Presiding Bishop of TEC makes clear that a deliberate course has been irrevocably chosen by that church. In it is stated that the intention to proceed with the consecration of a second person living in an actively homosexual partnered relationship and thereby to disregard the mind of the rest of the Communion is “”¦not the decision of one person, or a small group of people. It represents the mind of a majority of elected leaders in The Episcopal Church, lay, clergy, and bishops, who have carefully considered the opinions and feelings of other members of the Anglican Communion as well as the decades-long conversations within this Church.”

Consequently, I feel constrained by my conscience to uphold my duty as shepherd of the flock and to forthwith suspend all communication both verbal and sacramental with both the TEC and the ACC ”“ their Primates, bishops and clergy until such time as they reverse their theological innovations, and show a commitment to abide by the decisions of the Lambeth Conference. This suspension of communion would not include those bishops and clergy who have distanced themselves from the direction of the TEC (such as the Communion Partners group).

Read it all.

Via email–KSH.

The Most Rev. Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London

Your Grace,

Easter greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In February I read with great interest Bishop Mouneer Anis’ letter of resignation from the Joint Standing Committee. I am grateful for his clarity and honesty. He has verbalized very well what many of us have thought and felt, and inspired me to write, as well.

As you know from our private conversations, I have absented myself for principled reasons from all meetings of the Joint Standing Committee since our Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.

The first meeting of the Joint Standing Committee was later that year in New Orleans. At our Primates meeting in February 2007, we made certain requests of the Episcopal Church. In our Dar es Salaam communiqué we did not envision interference in the American House of Bishops while they were considering our requests. For me to participate in a meeting in New Orleans before the 30th September deadline would have violated our hard-won agreement in Dar es Salaam and would have been another case of undermining our instruments of communion. My desire to uphold our Dar es Salaam communiqué was intended to strengthen our instruments of communion so we would be able to mature into an even more effective global communion of the Church of Jesus Christ than in the past.
Subsequent meetings of the Joint Standing Committee have included the Primate of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and other members of TEC, who are the very ones who have pushed the Anglican Communion into this sustained crisis. How can we expect the gross violators of Biblical Truth to sanction their own discipline when they believe they have done nothing wrong and further insist that their revisionist theology is actually the substance of Anglicanism?

We have only to note the recent election and confirmation of an active Lesbian as a Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles to realize that TEC has no interest in “gracious restraint,” let alone a moratorium on the things that have brought us to this point of collapse. It is now impossible to regard their earlier words of “regret” as a serious gesture of reconciliation with the rest of the Communion.

Together with Bishop Mouneer, I am equally concerned, as you know, about the shift in the balance of powers among the Instruments of Communion. It was the Primates in 2003 who requested the Lambeth Commission on Communion that ultimately produced the Windsor Report. It was the Primates who received the Windsor Report at our meeting in Dromantine in 2005. It was the Primates, through our Dromantine Communique, who presented the appropriate “hermeneutic” through which to read the Windsor Report. That “hermeneutic,” however, has been obscured by the leadership at St. Andrew’s House who somehow created something we never envisioned called the “Windsor Process.”

The Windsor Report was not a “process.” It was a Report, commissioned by the Primates and received by the Primates. The Primates made specific and clear requests of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. When TEC, particularly, did not clearly answer our questions, we gave them more time in 2007 to clarify their position.

Suddenly, though, after the 2007 Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, the Primates no longer had a role to play in the very process they had begun. The process was mysteriously transferred to the Anglican Consultative Council and, more particularly, to the Joint Standing Committee. The Joint Standing Committee has now evolved into the “Standing Committee.” Some suggest that it is the Standing Committee “of the Anglican Communion.”

There is, however, no “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” The Standing Committee has never been approved in its present form by the Primates Meeting or the Lambeth Conference. Rather, it was adopted by itself, with your approval and the approval of the ACC. The fact that five Primates are included in no way represents our Anglican understanding of the role of Primates as metropolitan bishops of their provinces.

Anglicanism is a church of Bishops and, at its best, is conciliar in its governance. The grave crisis before us as a Communion is both a matter of faith as well as order. Matters of faith and order are the domain of Bishops. In a Communion the size of the Anglican Communion, it is unwieldy to think of gathering all the Bishops of the Communion together more frequently than the current pattern of every ten years. That is why the Lambeth Conference in 1998 resolved that the Primates Meeting should be able to “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” (Resolution III.6).

What has emerged, however, is the Standing Committee being given “enhanced responsibility” and the Primates being given “diminished responsibility,” even in regard to a process begun by them. Indeed, this Standing Committee has granted itself supreme authority over Covenant discipline in the latest draft. Under these circumstances, it has not been possible for me to participate in meetings of the Joint Standing Committee that has taken upon itself authority it has not been given.

Accordingly, I stand with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee. Many of us are in a state of resignation as we see how the Communion is moving away further and further into darkness, especially since the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam.

Your Grace, I have urged you in the past, and I will urge you again. There is an urgent need for a meeting of the Primates to continue sorting out the crisis that is before us, especially given the upcoming consecration of a Lesbian as Bishop in America. The Primates Meeting is the only Instrument that has been given authority to act, and it can act if you will call us together.

The agenda for that meeting should be set by the Primates themselves at the meeting, and not by any other staff in advance of the meeting. I reiterate this point because you will recall our cordial December 2008 meeting with you, Chris Smith, and the other GAFCON Primates in Canterbury where we discussed the agenda for the Primates meeting to take place in Alexandria the following month. None of our submissions were included in the agenda. Likewise, at the beginning of the January 2009 Primates meeting I was asked to present a position paper on the effect of the crisis in the Communion from our perspective, but I was not informed in advance, so I did not come prepared. Yet, other presenters, including TEC and Canada, were given prior information and came very prepared. I have never received a formal written apology about that incident, and it has caused me to wonder if there are two standards at work in how a Primate is treated.

Finally, the meeting should not include the Primates of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada who are proceeding with unbiblical practices that contradict the faith of Anglicanism. We cannot carry on with business as usual until order is brought out of this chaos.

Yours, in Christ,

–(The Most Rev. ) Henry Luke Orombi is Archbishop of Uganda

My dear brothers in Christ:

I write you because of developments in The Episcopal Church, about which you will soon hear and read. As you all know, the Diocese of Los Angeles elected two suffragan bishops in December, and the consent process for those bishops has been ongoing since then. One of those bishops-elect is a woman in a partnered same-sex relationship.

At this point, she has received consent from a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction, and a majority of the standing committees of this Church. According to our canons, I must now take order for her consecration. I will do so, and anticipate that both bishops-elect will be consecrated at the same service on 15 May. It has been my practice, since I took office, to preside at the consecration of new bishops, and I intend to do so in this case as well.
It may help you to know that our House of Bishops will continue to discuss these issues at our meeting later this month. The papers we discuss will be available publicly following that meeting, and we will endeavor to see that you receive copies. I would encourage you to engage in conversation any bishops whom you know in this Church, particularly those you came to know at Lambeth, whether in Bible study or Indaba groups.

Know that this is not the decision of one person, or a small group of people. It represents the mind of a majority of elected leaders in The Episcopal Church, lay, clergy, and bishops, who have carefully considered the opinions and feelings of other members of the Anglican Communion as well as the decades-long conversations within this Church. It represents a prayerful and thoughtful decision, made in good faith that this Church is ”˜working out its salvation in fear and trembling, believing that God is at work in us’ (Philippians 2:12-13).

I ask your prayers for this Church, for the Diocese of Los Angeles, and for the members of the Anglican Communion. This part of the Body of Christ has abundant work to do, and God’s mission needs us all.

If you have questions about this decision or process, I would encourage you to contact me. I would be glad to talk with you.

I pray that your ministry may continue to be a transformative blessing to many. I remain

Your servant in Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Katharine Jefferts Schori is Presiding Bishop of TEC

The Windsor Report of 2004 recommended “that the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” [Section D subsection 134, bullet point no 3].

That request was reiterated at the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam and followed at the Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria with a request for ”˜gracious restraint’. The decision of The Episcopal Church in respect of the confirmation of an election and subsequent consecration of a partnered gay person to the episcopate has clearly signalled the end of ”˜gracious restraint’. This is a development which I deeply regret. Whatever may be ”˜the mind of a majority of the elected leaders in The Episcopal Church’, it does not reflect the mind of a majority of those in positions of leadership in the Anglican Communion and it is bound to create even greater stresses within the Communion at a time when consultations on an Anglican Covenant are at an advanced stage.

The action of The Episcopal Church also has implications for another serious issue that has strained the bonds of affection within the Communion, namely extraterritorial interventions by other provinces in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. A moratorium on such interventions and also on the authorization of public rites of blessing for same-sex unions was requested by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. In neither of these cases has “gracious restraint” been wholly exercised.

Read it all.

From here:

I have had my own disappointments and outright disagreements with Canterbury’s chosen course of action at various points over the last few years, and I have shared this with him personally. Where some have urged a “bolder” response to TEC, within the limits of his ecclesial and moral authority, I have urged the same thing. But I categorically reject the charges made here that he has set about to undermine agreements made among the Primates, as at Dar es Salaam, or to manipulate and ignore legal processes such as those in place at the ACC last May.

In the first instance, RW was personally a key player (not the only one) at getting the Dar agreement nominally accepted, through face to face persuasion on the floor, as it were. That has been stated by several GS primates present at the time. But the agreement was also made possible by the compromise work of primates who were not personally disposed to aspects of its content, e.g. Australia. The Dar agreement, in other words, was intrinsically fragile, based as it was on temporary dynamics and uncertain internal commitments. The sense of Lambeth, it soon became apparent, was that its prosecution was thereby vulnerable from the start, and at the first sign of withdrawal of strong support outside of the meeting, Lambeth decided that pressing the agreement concretely would be counterproductive to the agreements actual aims. These “signs” included TEC and AMiA both immediately rejecting key provisions, and their allies quickly standing behind them.

I believe that RW gave up too quickly, choosing instead (as he has consistently done) to rebuild alternative consensus for change through other groups (e.g. the Windsor Continuation Group). This is fair game to debate and criticize, it seems to me. But the notion that RW was the skunk in the patch here is, to put it bluntly, a matter of sinners throwing stones. The Primates Meeting had already proved to be, in certain respects, a place where bishops behaved badly, and the fact that it was judged to be a weak reed should surprise no one. I don’t believe it needed to be left at this place, but again, that is matter for debate.

As for the ACC, we all know that the running of this meeting was a procedural disaster that has set back the ACC’s credibility enormously, fanning the flames of suspicion by all and sundry. No one can mitigate that loss of trust or the justifications in general for that loss. But there is a long way between such generally well-founded worries about the ACC’s ability to do its job fairly and well, and condemning this or that individual with deliberate and malicious intent. “Manipulation” there was, I would think, although any precise assessment of blame is not possible to come by. And Canterbury’s role in this demonstrates confusion””albeit deeply regrettable confusion””rather than strategic subversion. Furthermore, the outcome with respect to the Covenant strikes me as a sign of recognition of this fact: amazingly expeditious revision, and starkly restrained in its focus. People don’t seem to admit mistakes much anymore in public; but the manner of this outcome adds up to an admission of sorts. That is my read of the matter, and I don’t think it is particularly pollyannish. Not, that is, in the face of the anti-Stalinists and anti-Czarists faced off against each other.

I remain convinced that those leaders””bishops, clergy, and laity””who can order their service to the church for the long haul, steadily and solidly faithful, ordered, engaged in commonly established processes of ecclesial life, honest and charitable, and perseverant in their commitments within and for the sake of the people shared (not just locally), will prevail. That is a promise of the Lord, it seems, to “those who endure to the end”. People like Abps. Chew and Mouneer Anis presently, or Gomez recently; and others. And, for all my concerns about this and that, Rowan Williams too has demonstrated a perserverence that is bound to his faith in Christ Jesus as Lord, and not to self-interest. From that certainly I can be strengthened. So should others be, whether or not they can affirm his decisions in this or that particular matter.