By George Conger

THE NEW Orleans statement of the US House of Bishops has ”˜clarified all outstanding questions’ posed by the Primates to the American Church, a report prepared by the Primates/ACC Joint Standing Committee (JSC) has found.

However, the 19-page report has been dismissed as dishonest by US conservatives, and its conclusions rejected by the African churches. Observers note the clumsy attempt of the JSC to usurp the prerogatives of the Primates, and to become a de facto fifth ”˜instrument of unity,’ has served to worsen the already bitter climate within the Communion.

The Primates had asked the US Church to clarify the statement of its 2006 General Convention that it would not permit the election of more gay bishops or authorise gay blessings, that an autonomous scheme for pastoral oversight be given to traditionalists, and that the lawsuits against breakaway conservative parishes would cease.

At their March meeting the US bishops invited Dr Williams and the members of the Primates Standing Committee to meet with them face-to-face to avert a blow up. Over the summer this invitation was enlarged by the ACC staff to include itself and the ACC standing committee. In New Orleans the US Bishops pledged ”˜as a body’ to ”˜exercise restraint’ in electing gay bishops, pledged not to authorise ”˜public rites’ of same-sex blessings, and agreed to delegated pastoral oversight for traditionalists under the supervision of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. It declined to address the issue of lawsuits, and chastised Global South Primates for violating their jurisdictions in providing support for traditionalist congregations.

The JSC concluded that this response satisfied the Primates’ requests and added the US was correct in citing the ”˜ancient councils of the Church’ in protesting border crossings. The Primates were hypocrites in demanding the US church refrain from implementing gay bishops and blessings while they permitted the border crossings to go on. “[W]e do not see how certain Primates can in good conscience call upon The Episcopal Church to meet the recommendations of the Windsor Report while they find reasons to exempt themselves from paying
regard to them.

“We recommend that the Archbishop remind them of their own words and undertakings,” the report said.

Crafted in a late night session on Sept 24 by Bishop Jefferts Schori and the JSC, the statement was adopted with amendments by the bishops on Sept 25. Critics of the report charge it is disingenuous of the ACC to give an independent endorsement of a report that it helped write, and question the US Presiding Bishop’s role as defendant, judge and jury in the process.

Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda called the report ”˜severely compromised, and the gross conflicts of interest it represents utterly undermine its credibility.’ He said the Primates did not envision the ACC inserting itself in the process while the US was ”˜considering our requests. Yet, members of the [JSC] met with Presiding Bishop Schori in the course of the preparation
of their House of Bishops’ statement in order to suggest certain words, which, if included in the statement, would assure endorsement by the [JSC].

”˜Presiding Bishop Schori’s participation in the evaluation of the response requested of her province is a gross conflict of interest. We wonder why she did not recuse herself.’ Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt, a member of the JSC delegation in New Orleans repudiated the report saying the US had given an inadequate response. “Instead they used ambiguous language and contradicted themselves within their own response,” he said.

The African archbishops also questioned the integrity of the JSC report, stating last Friday that: “On first reading we find it to be unsatisfactory. The assurances made are without credibility and its preparation is severely compromised by numerous conflicts of interest. The report itself appears to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of The Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.”

The JSC report will be forwarded to all of the members of the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates for consideration. Archbishop Rowan Williams has asked for
their responses by the end of October.

–This article appears on page 8 of today’s edition of the Church of England Newspaper

The following is an excerpt of the lead article in the Diocese of Northern Michigan’s September 2007 newspaper, entitled “Dar es Salaam, Already One in God.” The intro to the article states “On the 19th of February, 2007, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, released a Communiqué. We, as the Diocese of Northern Michigan, offer our response.” It is not clear who exactly within the diocese drafted this response. Please read it all carefully. It is noteworthy not so much for what it says specifically in response to the Primates’ demands, but its articulation of the theological convictions accepted within the diocese. This is where TEC’s Baptismal Ecclesiology can lead individuals or an entire diocese.

(emphasis added)

We invite all to God’s table. What we expect, in turn, is that those who come to the table likewise recognize the right, by being children of God, of everyone else to be at the table.

BAPTISMAL ECCLESIOLOGY

We proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ that everyone and everything belongs. We are continually being created in the image of God, in whom we live and move and have our being. Baptism confirms this most basic truth which is at once, the Good News: all is of God, without condition and without restriction.

We seek and serve Christ in all persons because all persons are the living Christ. Each and every human being, as a human being, is knit together in God’s Spirit, and thus an anointed one ”“ Christ. Jesus of Nazareth reveals this as the basic truth of the human condition:

God is more in me
than if the whole sea
could in a little sponge
wholly contained be.
~Angelus Silesius

We strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being, because each person embodies the living God. Life is inherently and thoroughly sacramental, which is why we love one another without condition.

We stand with Meister Eckhart who, when he gazed deep within himself, as well as all about him, saw that “the entire created order is sacred” as it is grounded
in God. We do harmful and evil things to ourselves and one another, not because we are bad, but because we are blind to the beauty of creation and ourselves. In other words, we are ignorant of who we truly are: “there is no Greek or Hebrew; no Jew or Gentile; no barbarian or Scythian; no slave or citizen. There is only Christ, who is all in all.” (Colossians 3:11).

Everyone is the sacred word of God, in whom Christ lives. This baptismal vision of a thoroughly blessed creation leads us to understand the reason for the incarnation in a new way:

People think God has only become a human being there ”“ in his historical incarnation ”“ but that is not so; for God is here ”“ in this very place ”“ just as much incarnate as in a human being long ago. And this is why he has become a human being: that he might give birth to you as his only begotten Son, and as no less. ~Meister Eckhart

AFFIRMATIONS

Because each and every one of us is an only begotten child of God; because we, as the church, are invited by God to see all of creation as having life only insofar as it is in God; because everything, without exception, is the living presence, or incarnation, of God; as the Diocese of Northern Michigan,

We affirm Christ present in every human being and reject any attempt to restructure The Episcopal Church’s polity in a manner contrary to the principles of the baptismal covenant;

We affirm the full dignity and autonomy and interdependence of every Church in the Anglican Communion and reject any attempt of the Primates to assume an authority they do not have nor have ever possessed;

We affirm the sacramental gift of all persons, their Christ-ness, especially those who are gay and lesbian, and reject any moratorium on the blessing of samesex unions and consents of gay bishops, as it would compromise their basic dignity.

The full article is here (pp. 1-2)

In its report, however, the Anglican panel said the bishops’ pledges had “clarified all outstanding questions” and given the needed assurances.

At the same time, the panel urged the Episcopal Church to do more to provide pastoral care and oversight to disaffected conservatives within its ranks. At least four dioceses, including Fresno-based San Joaquin, are taking steps to break with the national church and align with conservative Anglican bishops abroad. More than 50 Episcopal parishes, including several in Southern California, have done the same.

Unless adequate reassurances can be given to dissident congregations and dioceses, “there will be no reconciliation either within the Episcopal Church or within the wider Anglican Communion,” the report said.

But the panel also appeared to rebuke several Anglican primates who had established networks of breakaway Episcopal parishes in the United States, calling for an end to such practices. “We believe that the time is right for a determined effort to bring interventions to an end,” the report stated.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, said in a statement Wednesday that she was pleased with the committee’s finding that the church had fulfilled the primates’ requests.

Read it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The JSC commends the listening process called for by Lambeth.

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

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

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

Look at the contributors and see if you notice a pattern

The present text was developed from the remarks of JSC members in New Orleans and in consultation with them.
In electronic correspondence, the following members of the Joint Standing Committee have signified their assent to this text:
♦ Phillip Aspinall, Primate of Australia, Primates’ Standing Committee
♦ Barry Morgan, Primate of Wales, Primates’ Standing Committee
♦ Katharine Jefferts Schori, Primate of The Episcopal Church, Primates’ Standing Committee
♦ John Paterson, Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the ACC Standing Committee
♦ George Koshy, Vice-Chair, ACC and Standing Committee
♦ Robert Fordham, ACC Standing Committee
♦ Kumara Illangasinghe, ACC Standing Committee
♦ James Tengatenga, ACC Standing Committee
♦ Nomfundo Walaza, ACC Standing Committee

Responses have not yet been received from:
♦ Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Primates’ Standing Committee
♦ Philippa Amable, ACC Standing Committee
♦ Jolly Babirukamu, ACC Standing Committee
♦ Elizabeth Paver, ACC Standing Committee

Update: Mouneer Anis is ‘incredibly disappointed and grieved’:

His response, which reached The Times a couple of hours after the JSC report was published, indicates perhaps that hopes of reconciliation remain as distant as ever, as the JSC itself appears from this document to fear they might. Archbishop Anis said this evening: ‘It is very unfortunate that not all the members of the Joint Standing Committee were present when a response to the HOB of TEC was drafted. The lack of discussion and interaction will not produce a report that expresses the view of the whole committee.’ He said the TEC response merely represented a ‘superficial shift’ from their previous position and refuted the JSC’s claim that there had been a change in position since 2003.

‘Therefore I strongly disagree with the report of the JSC which states that “We believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them, and on which clarifications were sought by the 30th of September, and given the necessary assurance sought of them.” The reasons for my disagreement are as follows:

‘On Public Rites for Blessing of Same-sex Unions

‘The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of Windsor Report that the “Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites”. It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar El Salam that the Bishops should “make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese.”

‘They did not declare a moratorium on authorization public rites of the blessing of same-sex unions. Instead the House of Bishops pledged not to authorize any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. I understand moratorium as “cessation of activity”. In the explanatory discussion they mentioned that “the majority”, not all, of Bishops do not make allowances for the blessings of same-sex unions. This means that a number of Bishops will continue to make allowances for the blessing of same-sex unions. I see this as an equivocal and unclear response.

‘While the House of Bishop’s response means that ‘authorization’ of the rites will not take place, but it also stated that some will continue to ”explore and experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions”. The exploration of liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions, keeps a window to continue such blessings under another title !! This unashamedly disregards the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion which is still torn over this issue.

Read it all.

Update: Here is perhaps a better link for +Mouneer Anis’ commentary on the JSC report.

Read it all.

By George Conger

Reactions to the US House of Bishops New Orleans statement amongst the Primates have broken along factional lines, with conservatives denouncing the statement as insubstantial and dishonest, while liberals have praised its candor and modesty.

The divergent views of the adequacy of the US response to the Primates request for clarification of American church practices towards gay bishops and blessings further complicates the Archbishop of Canterbury’s hopes of forestalling a schism within the Communion.

Straightened finances and fears of a boycott by the primates of Wales, Ireland and Scotland to an emergency primates’ meeting to discuss the American response to the primates’ Dar es Salaam communique, has led to Dr. Williams telephoning the Communion’s primates to try to find a common mind. Whether the primates’ round robin will produce an amicable resolution appears to be further hampered by the different world views of the players in Anglicanism’s great game. Aides to the Archbishop told The Church of England Newspaper during his meeting with the American bishops in New Orleans that Dr. Williams hoped to find the right combination of words that would satisfy the church’s disparate factions.

However, leaders of the Global South coalition have demanded not words, but action from the American church, and have little trust in the veracity of American promises of good behavior. Leaders of the liberal wing of the US Church and across the Communion are also divided, with some arguing that truth must not be subordinated to expediency while others hope their place within the councils of the church can be saved through the artful use of semantics.

The Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Alan Harper of Armagh lauded the American response, saying the American “Bishops have gone a considerable way to meeting the reasonable demands of their critics.”

Archbishop Harper noted the “generous agreement” of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori “to put in place a plan to appoint Episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight” and stated that while the bishops had declined “participation in the ”˜Pastoral Scheme’ offered by the Primates,” they had “at least” recognized the “useful role” of the Communion in these debates. Dr. Harper stated this seemed to be a “balanced and relatively generous response in a very delicate area of inter-provincial relationships.”

Bishop David Beetge of the Highveld, the acting primate and vicar general of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, said he welcomed the decision “for the simple reason it gives us more space and time to talk to each other.”

The Primate of Australia, Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Brisbane said he believed the US had “responded positively to all the requests put to them by the Primates in our Dar es Salaam communiqué.”However, he went on to damn the American Church with faint praise saying “Certainly they have responded to the substance of those requests.”

However the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. Peter Jensen was not as sanguine. “At first reading, the statement from the TEC bishops does not seem to say anything new,” he noted. “The situation may not then be changed in any way.”

The African churches were stronger in their condemnation. “What we expected to come from them is to repent. That this is a sin in the eyes of the Lord and repentance is what me, in particular, and others expected to hear coming from this church,” Kenyan Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi said.

The Assistant Bishop of Kampala, David Zac Niringiye told the BBC’s Focus on Africa programme Uganda believed the statement was inadequate as it was “not a change of heart”, but a temporizing solution.The Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola stated the US response fell short of what was required. The primates had given the US “one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance” that it would conform to the “to the mind and teaching of the Communion.” He said the primates were unwilling to accept further “ambiguous and misleading statements” from the US Church. “Sadly it seems that our hopes were not well founded and our pleas have once again been ignored.”

Meanwhile the Anglican Mainstream group said they were disappointed with the response because it failed to address the specific questions asked of it by the Primates’ Meeting in February, and backed the Common Cause College of Bishops. In a statement they said: “The first two points ”” on the election of non-celibate gay and lesbian bishops, and on public rites for blessing same-sex unions ”” suggest that the TEC House of Bishops has agreed not to walk further away from the rest of the Anglican Communion for the moment. “However, the TEC House of Bishops gives no indication of being prepared to turn and walk back towards us so that we may walk ahead together, and in reality same-sex blessings are continuing. “Moreover, there is no response to the Primates’ request to suspend all legal action.”

The Church Society also rejected the House of Bishops statement saying it demonstrates TEC has ”˜abandoned orthodox Christianity’.

–This article appears in the October 5, 2007 Church of England Newspaper, page 3, under a different headline

The best that could be hoped for from the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans was clarity. In fact it was this that the Primates in the Dar-es-Salaam meeting earlier this year were particularly requesting after a decade of obfuscation.

Firstly, the General Convention resolutions of last year were ambiguous in their response to the call for a moratoria on same-sex blessings and the consecration of so-called ”˜partnered homosexuals’. As usual the Bishops and deputies of the Convention gave themselves a large amount of wriggle room to pursue their own agendas. Thus we had the spectacle at one of the House of Bishops press conferences this week of the Bishop of Los Angeles, Jon Bruno, earnestly informing the press that same-sex blessings had not been authorised in his diocese. It later came to light that they were routine in his diocese and he had even presided at one himself. In other words, they didn’t need authorisation because they were an accepted part of diocesan practice.

So in some senses, the eight-point plan adopted by the Bishops and thrown as a lifeline to the embattled Archbishop of Canterbury might be seen as a move forward towards this clarity and honesty that is so badly needed.
The Bishops reiterated the General Convention resolution which promised restraint in the election of bishops ”˜whose manner of life’ presented a challenge and spelled out helpfully that this included practising homosexuals.
They also promised not to authorise public rites of blessing, but clung to the get-out clause that allowed a diversity of pastoral responses to gay men and lesbians. In other words, plenty of wriggle room there.

Another crucial response which was required in the Primates’ Tanzanian demands was a scheme of alternative Episcopal oversight. It is here that the American Bishops chose to raise their two-fingered salutes to the rest of the ”˜Americans and Europeans are religious in different ways’ Communion by rejecting any notion of ”˜alternative’ oversight in favour of modifying their ”˜delegated oversight scheme’. The trouble is that this has never worked because it has never had the confidence of those it was established for. The Bishops accepted some degree of outward influence on the ”˜delegated’ scheme giving Presiding Bishop Schori the decisive role in taking this forward.

And then comes a list of demands from the House of Bishops. Find a place at the Lambeth Conference for Gene Robinson and we’ll send a delegation to the Archbishop of Canterbury to help him do so ””presumably the heavy brigade to twist Dr Williams arms behind his back. End incursions by African Archbishops onto American soil and protect the human rights of lesbians and gays throughout the communion. This latter point in a sense is the least controversial to western ears, but badly needs saying in parts of the world where homosexuality is still criminalised and gays face persecution and violence. However, with its credibility as a Church which values the opinions of the wider body in absolute tatters, I’m not sure that The Episcopal Church’s voice can be heard on this fundamental point.

The eight-point plan, endorsed almost unanimously [We now know this is not true, thought what is true exactly remains murky–KSH], promised no consent for any more gay bishops, no public blessings, and the adoption of a plan for Episcopal visitors to conservative parishes which cannot accept their liberal bishops. On reflection, the House of Bishops statement goes some way towards answering the demands of the Tanzanian communiqué, but probably not far enough. It will certainly not reassure Primates who are already marking out territory in the United States and will not roll back the incursions there.

We are left with chaos and we are all left with the blame. Firstly, so-called ”˜conservatives’ in the US and elsewhere have not stood united together in opposing changes in theology which have led us to our current pass. Secondly, liberals have played fast and loose with scripture. When they have failed to change the mind of the Church they have resorted to placing facts on the ground, and accomplishing their agenda by dishonest manoeuvres rather than open theological debate in the councils of the Church and communion. Sadly, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers have made two recent catastrophic errors. In sending out Lambeth
invitations to all US bishops they ignored the weight of the Windsor Report towards a distancing of Gene Robinson, and the coconsecrators from the councils of the Communion.

This has introduced confusion into a process which was absolutely clear from the time that the Windsor Report was published. Secondly, during the time of negotiation last week with the House of Bishops, Dr Williams openly declared that September 30, which the Primates had set as a deadline for response, was no ultimatum but merely a convenient date following the House of Bishops meeting.

It is clear that this is not a view shared by many of his fellow primates and does not reflect the language of the communiqué itself. This declaration however gives an open signal that Dr Williams himself is not prepared to lead the Communion in any proper sanction against The Episcopal Church. We can therefore expect further tragic fragmentation in the coming months.

–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, September 28, 2007, edition, page 15

Read it all.

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”.

–The Anglican Primates Tanzania Communique

Joint Statement on the Resolution of the House of Bishops

Three orthodox Anglican groups, the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, and Forward in Faith North America, have issued a joint statement on the recently-concluded meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans.

The last seven days have been eventful ones for the worldwide Anglican Communion. The future of our 500 year fellowship has been focused on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops (HOB). The worldwide Anglican Communion has been looking for clarity, praying for unity, and searching for Christ and His will in our lives. Unfortunately, the HOB has failed the Communion; their continued ambiguity, questioning of basic Christian beliefs, and rejection of obvious Scriptural teaching has widened the gap between them and biblical Christianity.

The Primates’ Dar es Salaam Communiqué required that The Episcopal Church:

# End same-sex blessings at all levels.
# Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
# Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with The Episcopal Church’s leadership.
# End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.

To our disappointment, the House of Bishops (HOB) did not meet the request but offered a carefully crafted response that appears to comply but actually maintains the status quo.

# The HOB refused to address the widespread practice of same-sex blessings. Instead, they restated their long-standing position.
# The HOB clarified Resolution B033 as applying to “non-celibate gay(s) and lesbian(s) [among others]”; however, the bishops agree only, for now, to “exercise restraint.”
# The HOB rejected the Primates’ plan for pastoral oversight and offered their own inadequate alternative.
# The HOB ignored the request to end lawsuits against parishes and vestries. To this day, churches and individuals face litigation funded by The Episcopal Church, and guided by its chancellor.
# Fully half of the response is concerned with matters not raised by the Communion that nonetheless press forward The Episcopal Church’s agenda.

We, with others gathered in Pittsburgh for the Common Cause Council of Bishops, are committed to remaining within biblical Christianity even as The Episcopal Church once again has chosen to continue on its own tragic course. We trust that in the weeks and months ahead God will guide us and the entire Anglican Communion in continuing and deepening a faithful path forward.

Posted September 26, 2007

from here:

The Rt. Rev. Thabo Cecil Makgoba, Bishop of Grahamstown, was elected Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan and Primate of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa on Sept. 25.

Bishop Makgoba, 47, will succeed the Most Rev. Njongonkulu Ndungane as archbishop, and will assume office on Jan 1. Viewed as a conservative on issues of human sexuality, he is expected to try to move the South African church closer to the other African Anglican provinces. The spiritual reconstruction of the church and of South African society will guide his tenure as archbishop, he told the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

Read it all.

September 26th, 2007

A STATEMENT ON THE RESPONSE OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TO THE DAR ES SALAAM COMMUNIQUÉ

In accordance with our desire to walk “in a manner worthy of the calling to which we have been called, ”¦ eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Ephesians (4:1,2) we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations. It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance from The Episcopal Church of their commitment to the mind and teaching of the Communion. We also made clear that it is a time for clarity and a rejection of what hitherto has been endless series of ambiguous and misleading statements. Sadly it seems that our hopes were not well founded and our pleas have once again been ignored.

While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. The unequivocal assurances that we sought have not been given; what we have is a carefully calculated attempt to win support to ensure attendance at the Lambeth Conference and continued involvement in the life of the Communion.

Instead of the change of heart (repentance) that we sought what we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination to “bring the rest of the Communion along” as stated by a bishop at one of the press conferences. We also note that while we have repeatedly asked for a moratorium on same-sex blessings ”“across the Episcopal Church the clergy have continued with these blessings with the full knowledge and support of the Diocesan bishops even if not technically authorized.

This attitude towards the Word of God and the requests of the Communion is at odds with the Spirit of the One we serve. The Unity that Christ commands can only be found in obedience to the Truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures and mutual submission to one another. The Gospel message of freedom, justice and dignity for all persons can only be found in heartfelt repentance and joyful obedience to the Truth.

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” John 14:21

THE CHURCH OF NIGERIA (Anglican Communion)

THE MOST REV. PETER J. AKINOLA, D.D, CON
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria.

Sincerely,

The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD

The resolution affirmed the status quo of the Episcopal Church, both theological conservatives and liberals said.

It states, for example, that it “reconfirms” a call to bishops “to exercise restraint” by not consenting to the consecration of a partnered gay bishop. It also says the bishops promise not to authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.” Still, some bishops allow such blessings to occur in their dioceses. Both positions have been stated in past meetings of the governing body of the church, the General Convention.

The resolution also calls for an “immediate end” to the practice of foreign bishops’ consecrating conservative Americans to minister to breakaway congregations in the United States, a trend that church leaders believe undermines their authority.

The Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a prominent conservative group supported by the Archbishop of Nigeria, responded to the bishops’ resolution: “They’re offering business as usual. The communion asked them to make a change, to embrace the teaching of the communion about homosexuality, and there’s no change at all.”

Read it all.

From the Tanzania Communique:

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

They said not a word about it. Not one–KSH.

Does it strike anyone else that as General Convention 2006 went down to the wire on the very last day, and the production of the unanimously supported Tanzania Communique also went down to the last part of the last session on the last day, that this House of Bishops meeting is headed in the same direction? I wonder what that really means–KSH.

Just prior to his departure from New Orleans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told The Living Church that the primates will be consulted as part of the process of evaluating whether The Episcopal Church has satisfactorily complied with the primates’ requests, but he has not decided whether to call for another primates’ meeting before the Lambeth Conference of Bishops meets next July.

I am posting the article it is from in a second but wanted this highlighted by itself–KSH.

For me, the significance and urgency of these next few days and weeks is in part because of the clear and specific, time-limited requests to TEC from the Primates and their warning that “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”. With Lambeth now less than a year away if there are indeed to be ‘consequences for…full participation’ it is clear the Primates will either have to eat their words or action will have to be taken by the Instruments sooner rather than later.

There is also the rapid rise in interventions within TEC and these now increasingly in the form not of taking parishes for a period under a foreign jurisdiction but of consecrations to the episcopate. When such consecrations began over 7 years ago, the then Archbishop of Canada, (in)famously remarked, “Bishops are not intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactured on one continent and fired into another as an act of aggression”. There now looks dangerously like an episcopal equivalent of an arms race developing as Nigeria (having followed Rwanda in establishing a US mission wing with its own bishop in Martyn Minns) have announced four more bishops (despite CANA having only 60 congregations and 80 clergy requiring oversight), Rwanda another 3 AMiA bishops, while Kenya and Uganda have recently joined in and elected and already consecrated new suffragan bishops to serve American parishes under their province’s jurisdiction. Linked together under Common Cause and meeting as what looks like a potential proto-college of bishops just after TEC’s House of Bishops and just before the African provinces of CAPA gather in early October, it now seems TEC’s claim to be the sole structural representative of Anglicanism in the US is unsustainable, especially if a number of dioceses shortly seek to remove themselves and become part – as whole dioceses – of another Anglican province. While this is, of course, simply the latest in a long line of defections and breakaways over the last 30 or 40 years, the fact these are fully integrated into other provinces of the Communion and their leadership apparently committed to working together in mission and ministry mean we are now clearly in uncharted waters for the Communion and its unity. These “interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation” (Primates at Dar) and I wish they had not happened and would now be stopped. However, they will only come to an end and the bishops and congregations somehow reintegrated and made regular within an ordered church if the American bishops next week change course.

My hope and prayer is therefore obviously that TEC’s bishops will respond clearly and positively to the request of the Primates. That will require them to reverse their initial rejection of the proposed Pastoral Scheme (which rash rejection, to be honest, played into the hands of those eager for more interventions, certainly in the case of Kenya and Uganda who were happy to work with the Scheme as a means of providing oversight for their American congregations). They will also need clearly to give the assurances sought[1] as to the effect of the actions of General Convention 2006 (and I don’t think they are being asked to unconstitutionally usurp or ‘trump’ Convention but simply to interpret its ambiguous resolutions and to make commitments clearly within their remit as bishops – episcopal authorisation of rites and consent to elected candidates for the episcopate). Only this will enable the Primates at last to be “in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships”.

Sadly, this outcome looks highly unlikely and so serious thought needs to be given to what happens next. I look forward to hearing how you think the Communion should respond to such an outcome but suspect you will call for a recognition of provincial autonomy and diversity in secondary matters, the need for ongoing respectful dialogue on both sexuality and the nature and structures of life in communion (especially as regards the proposed covenant), and the importance of Lambeth 2008 as a place where such dialogue can take place and bonds of affection be strengthened. As I write that – please forgive me for putting the words into your mouth and correct me where I am wrong! – I realise that stated in those general terms and abstracted from our recent history I could agree. The difficulty is that, as with the majority of the Communion, I don’t at present see these as areas of legitimate diversity. I also honestly believe that if the dialogue and Lambeth conference we so urgently need is to be in the context of trust that will enable conversations to flourish and move everyone on from the current impasse then the American church must take the steps called for in the Windsor Report and reaffirmed consistently by all the Instruments of Communion.

What then do I think should happen if TEC fails to respond adequately? In one sense of course that is of little importance. TEC is responding to the Primates who in turn are simply following the mind of the Communion as expressed in TWR and its reception. It is, therefore, vital for the Primates as a body to determine – or at least be integrally involved in the determination of – the Communion’s response.

Read it all.

Q&A #1: from New Jersey, by phone (at 18.35ff. on the telecast): “I keep hearing about a deadline of September 30, that it’s a line in the sand. I’m not sure what happens if no action is taken by September 30th.”

KJS: “A decision not to decide is also a decision”¦. What is likely to happen is that we would be excluded in some way from the councils of the Anglican Communion. My guess is that the Archbishop of Canterbury will respect the will of the majority of the primates expressed in this communiqué, and impose some sanctions in that regard.”

Nunley: “And what does that mean for the church?”

KJS: “What it means for the church is we lose our voice at the table; we might lose our voice in that conversation. It could mean that we lose our ability to influence, our ability to share experience, our ability to challenge people to consider other options, in our conversations with other leaders around the Anglican Communion.”

#2: from France, by email (19:47ff.): “A hypothetical question that no one wants to answer, but: Could the Episcopal Church go it alone?”KJS: “I don’t think this church is ever alone. We have many, many partners around the world, partners in mission, partners in theological discussions. The body of Christ is never meant to be divided up into pieces; and I think that’s the underlying struggle in this”¦.”

#16: from Cedar Falls, Iowa, by phone (37:38): “Good morning. I’m here with my partner”¦. And, Bp Schori, you’ve stated that the communiqué is a gracious offering to us to have some space to work. But in reading it, it feels like, to us, that the answers are already specified for us that we must meet. The primates have not accepted what we’ve done in Convention; the sanctions are already specified: for if we do not do A, B, and C, this is what’s going to happen. So, in reading it, we don’t feel like there’s much space or much graciousness; it feels very harsh. Thank-you.”

KJS (38:27): “I understand that and I share some of that sentiment; Americans don’t like anybody to tell them what to do; that’s part of our DNA. At the same time, to live together in Christian community means that each member takes seriously the needs and concerns of the other members. And it is in that sense that, I think, what we’re being asked may have some gracious elements in it. It is a response that is asked for a season, until the Covenant process is completed. And if this church decides that it wants to continue to be a partner at the conversation table in the process of creating that Covenant, we have some expectations set before us.”

Read it all.

from here:

The AP wanted to know, “who is going to decide whether the Episcopal Church has responded to the Dar Es Salaam Communique”¦?” Bishop Rabb said, “it is the Primates who will have to decide that.”

I agree. The Primates asked for the Windsor Report, they received it and modified it slightly in Dromantine, and then in response to the TEC’s response to Windsor and Dromantine, they issued the Tanzania Communique. Now the American House of Bishops is meeting in response to the Primates Tanzania Communique and before their September 30th deadline. So where is the Primates meeting on the Anglican Communion schedule? That would seem to be quite important–KSH.

Stand Firm has four documents posted. Three are suggestions by various Bishops as to what should be said in a “Mind of the House” resolution. The fourth is a memo from Peter Lee. We’ve posted some excerpts below, but if you can read them all at Stand Firm, please do so.

A Memorandum to the House of Bishops from Peter James Lee
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6103/

This one is about Resolution B033 — an explanation of what it supposedly meant to the House of Bishops.

Key text:
[blockquote]The General Convention speaks for the Episcopal Church and we bishops understand that resolution as providing an assurance to the wider communion that meets the requests of the Primates’ Communique from the Primates’ meeting in Tanzania. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church has never authorized the blessing of intimate unions between same sex partners. While the Episcopal Church has, for some forty years, explored the most faithful way of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people who are part of our common life, as a liturgical church, our official actions are expressed in our liturgies and no rite of blessing has ever been adopted by the General Convention.[/blockquote]

========================

Bishop Henry N. Parsley (Alabama): Mind of the House Resolution
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6105/

This one is a bit more detailed, it tries to discuss all the issues: Polity, B033, authorization of SSBs, DEPO, etc. Here’s an excerpt:

We have listened prayerfully to your communiqué from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in February 2007 and offer our response.

We recognize that in the polity of the Episcopal Church we as the House of Bishops acting alone cannot legislate for this church or alter resolutions of the General Convention. In our role as chief pastors of the Episcopal Church we believe that, consistent with the report presented to you by the Communion Sub-Group of the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee, our General Convention Resolution B-033 (On the Election of Bishops) is in accord with the requests of the Windsor Report and meets your concerns. The Sub-Group found that this resolution “complies with the force of the Windsor Report” and that by adopting it “the majority of the bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.” We agree.

Secondly, we remind you that our General Convention did not in 2006, nor has before, adopted resolutions authorizing the development of the public rites for the blessing of same sex unions. The Covenant Statement adopted by our House of Bishops in 2005 states that “we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006”. The General Convention of 2006 took no action on this matter and the Covenant Statement continues to have moral force among us as bishops. We continue as well to heed the word of the Primates’ Meeting communiqué from Dromantine assuring “homosexual persons that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.” We recognize that in our diocese there will be differing pastoral responses to this affirmation.

Thirdly, we affirm once again our unequivocal commitment and care for all the dioceses, parishes, and members of the Episcopal Church, as evidenced in our Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan.

========================

A Resolution Submitted by Bishop Dean E. Wolfe, Diocese of Kansas
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6106/

Ok here’s the key section of this one:

As bishops laboring in a fractured age, we seek to find a place for everyone at Christ’s table. We believe room for respectful disagreement within our church is holy space and we value opportunities for ongoing conversation, prayer, and growth. While we acknowledge that we are not of one mind, we continue to strive to be of one heart. We are resolute in our belief that, “the mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.”

We pledge ourselves to work more fervently for deeper unity in the Church and we commit ourselves to addressing the pastoral needs and concerns of everyone in our care. We are pleased to note a growing awareness and understanding of the polity of The Episcopal Church, both within the membership of our own church and with our Anglican partners in other Provinces, even as we gain a deeper awareness and understanding of the polity of other Provinces. We affirm our understanding that The General Convention, that wondrous gathering of lay and ordained person, is authoritative for our Province.

=======================

Mind Of The House Resolution Submitted By Bishop Pierre Whalon
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6107/

Bishop Whalon’s resolution is the most detailed of all. Not merely a short statement but quite a comprehensive outline of what he thinks the bishops need to say. Here is his introduction and another short excerpt:

I propose that the document we release at the end of our meeting address the basic points below, some of which have to be filled out as the meeting unfolds. The first three seem to me to be obviously needed, The other points also seem necessary: some description of the actual state of The Episcopal church, to help people around the world hear what is actually happening among us: addressing the issue of authority in the Communion, particularly relating to the ACC; affirming the essential unity of all the baptized, despite how we might feel about other people at times; and addressing the matters of the Primatial Vicar, B033, and rites of same-sex blessings.

I offer some language for these latter points, in parts quite strong. It isn’t in my usual style, but I think we cannot mince words. Some reiteration of basics of the faith seems necessary, since people around the globe will be reading what we have to say. […]

IV. Before we turn to our comment on the Primates Communiqué, we must set the record straight about the actual state of The Episcopal Church. E.g.,

Number of parishes is 7,115; numbers of parishes seeking to leave TEC is around 160, or about 2.2%. This is a major tragedy, but not the massive movement that some would claim.

While the Windsor Report commended our plan of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (§152), we have seen an organized strategy of congregations refusing any and all provision of alternative oversight and then claiming that they are being persecuted. When parishes have been willing to engage in the process, DEPO has worked effectively. We noted with frustration that DEPO, offered at great cost, did not receive any recognition in the Primates Communiqué.

It should be noted that parishes and dioceses in The Episcopal Church do not exist apart from it. We respect that some people feel bound by conscience to leave the Church and go elsewhere, though such partings of friends have been extremely painful to live through. Some parishes have challenged their dioceses in the secular courts for retention of properties that do not belong to them. These properties are most often the result of the hard work of generations of faithful Episcopalians, and the lawsuits have resulted in serious wasteful diversion of funds that should be consecrated for the mission of God to pay for secular legal representation. While we are listening to the leaders of a few dioceses who say they must leave, and would dread that eventuality, it is clear that they would leave as people, not dioceses. As Bishops of this Church. We implore those who feel they need to leave to reconsider.

Eight bishops have accepted an invitation to serve as episcopal visitors consistent with Delegated Pastoral Oversight (DEPO), an initiative approved by the House of Bishops in 2004.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was expected to announce the development during the opening plenary session of the House of Bishops’ meeting Sept. 20-25 in New Orleans, according to the Rev. Canon Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.

Canon Robertson added that Bishop Jefferts Schori conferred with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams about the invitations, which she extended after a process of consultation with bishops in The Episcopal Church. The first two days of the meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams are private.

Read it all.

In order to try to rectify this situation, the Primates – based on a number of Lambeth resolutions urging them to exercise greater authority in such situations – made the unprecedented step of proposing their own solution to the internal problems of the American province. This involves the establishing of a Pastoral Council of up to five members (chaired by a Primate nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and with two members nominated by the Primates and two nominated by the Presiding Bishop) to implement a Pastoral Scheme, facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation, monitor TEC’s response to Windsor and ‘consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report § 157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops’. 14

The Pastoral Scheme is focussed on the group known as ‘Windsor’ or ‘Camp Allen’ bishops (and others who may join them). They may provide pastoral oversight to parishes who request it and nominate a Primatial Vicar who will be delegated powers and duties by the Presiding Bishop and be responsible to the Council. Crucially, this system is to be implemented whatever decisions are made by the House of Bishops prior to September 30 th this year and the Scheme is ‘intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of the Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required’. 15

The benefits of this solution are, first, that it prevents the establishment of a new province by creating a Primatially-sponsored and overseen interim structure within TEC during the covenant process. Second, it offers the hope of bringing an end to violations of this aspect of Windsor because, once the Pastoral Scheme is in place, ‘the Primates undertake to end all interventions’ and ‘congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight’ set out in the scheme. 16 It is, however, noted that there are ‘particular difficulties’ with the more structured interventions undertaken by Rwanda (American Mission in America – AMiA) and Nigeria (Convocation of Anglicans in North America – CANA), both of which have consecrated former ECUSA/TEC priests as bishops. Third, it represents a conciliar way forward for the Communion agreed by the Primates as a whole rather than a unilateral solution offered simply by some of the Primates such as the Global South grouping or a part of that network.

This proposal therefore seeks to maintain the internal unity of the American church by providing much more robust structures of alternative pastoral oversight which are to be monitored by the wider Communion. In so doing, it hopes to encourage those currently identified with (or flirting with) Group I to become more communion-minded and align more clearly with Group II, just as elsewhere the communiqué seeks to encourage the American bishops clearly to distinguish themselves from Group IV by complying fully and unambiguously with The Windsor Report’s recommendations.

The Primates in Tanzania therefore managed not only to avoid any split within the Communion but also to take actions that uphold both Lambeth I.10 and the Windsor Report and that encourage bishops, dioceses and provinces to act in conformity with these and move away from Group I and Group IV (positions that increase pressure for fragmentation and realignment) into Group II or Group III. The question now is whether TEC will be able to give the necessary reassurances and implement the proposed Pastoral Scheme and whether intervening bishops from the Global South will then work with the Scheme. Each one of these conditions remains far from certain but were they to be met then there is the real possibility that there could be greater stability over the next few years as the covenant process unfolds and a new pattern of life in communion continues to develop in our Communion relationships, to be articulated in Communion statements and to reform the Instruments of Communion.

It is not short but please take the time to read it all.

“We’re very clear on our (church governance) and our theology,” said Washington, D.C., Bishop John Bryson Chane on Wednesday. “Our position on full inclusion in all parts of church life for all the baptized has not, and will not, change.”

“This is the first time the Archbishop of Canterbury will hear, in our own voices, where we are as a church, what we’ve been through and where we are going,” he said.

Traditionalists are holding steadfast as well. More than 60 parishes have split off to align with traditionalist archbishops in Africa and South America. Several are battling their former dioceses in court for possession of parish properties.

Already the primates for Nigeria and Kenya have consecrated U.S.-based bishops to run essentially parallel parishes in defiance of the Episcopal Church. But the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon of the Diocese of South Carolina estimates 8% to 20% of active Episcopalians “have enormous problems with what’s happening, but no provision is being made for them….

Though Harmon sees intense pressure on the Episcopal Church this week, Canon Jim Naughton, spokesman for Chane’s diocese, says traditionalists have no cards left to play. “I think the leaders of the Episcopal Church are more optimistic about remaining in the Communion than they have been in several years,” Naughton says.

Read it all.

Though Anglican leaders have urged the U.S. church to stop electing gay bishops who are in committed relationships, a lesbian priest is among five finalists for bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. Meanwhile, dissidents in the diocese will turn out Sunday in suburban Wheaton to hear Archbishop Peter Akinola, conservative leader of Nigeria’s Anglican Church and the fiercest critic of the Episcopal Church’s stance on gays.

His visit irked Bishop William Persell of Chicago, who said the event was potentially damaging to the church amid the “highly charged political rhetoric in our nation and around the world” about issues dividing the Anglicans.

“It’s unfortunate that he would come into the diocese of Chicago without so much as the courtesy of contacting me,” Persell said. “I think it’s a dangerous time for the communion.”

At their meeting in New Orleans, the U.S. bishops will discuss how to respond to a directive from Anglican leaders to stop consecrating gay bishops and to ban blessings of same-sex unions until the global church reaches a consensus. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, titular head of the communion, will be there, facing U.S. bishops for the first time since the 2003 consecration of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

That the Wheaton event is being held at the same, critical moment is one illustration of how new alliances between American conservatives and overseas clergy have pushed the Anglican Communion to a possible breaking point.

But for many Episcopalians, the separation in the church has begun. Already, the dioceses of Quincy, Ill., Ft. Worth, San Joaquin, Calif., and Pittsburgh have begun planning to leave the Episcopal Church.

Still, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy said he was holding out hope that Williams would take definitive action to preserve the communion.

“We are asking Rowan Williams to be bold and represent the worldwide Anglican Communion and not just the Episcopal Church,” he said. “The Episcopal Church has engaged in behavior that has caused a rupture in the communion, and I feel saddened by that.”

Read it all.

[Ephraim] Radner described the meeting as the most significant for the church in at least three years.

For many years, the Episcopal Church has been at odds with much of the Anglican Communion over the U.S. church’s more liberal views on homosexuality and scriptural teachings. The Episcopal Church directly challenged the prevailing conservative views of the communion in 2003 when it consecrated V.Gene Robinson, a gay man living with his partner, as bishop of New Hampshire.

In February, tensions escalated further when three dozen top Anglican leaders, known as primates, issued the directive on gay bishops and same-sex blessings at a meeting in Tanzania. They also urged the Episcopal Church to create an alternative structure to oversee conservative breakaway parishes and dioceses, with several of its members to be appointed by clerics outside the United States.

The Episcopal bishops rejected the oversight proposal in May, saying it could lead to the permanent division of the Episcopal church. And in June, the church’s executive council turned down the demand on same-sex unions and gay bishops. Such decisions, the council said, could only be made by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, which is not scheduled to meet until 2009.

The Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, said Wednesday that he did not expect those decisions to be overturned at the bishops’ meeting. “I don’t believe we have the power to go beyond that before the General Convention,” he said. “And if the primates think some magic change will occur in the House of Bishops and the national church in which we say we rescind everything, that’s not going to happen.”

Read it all.

The BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the dispute has proved so “devastating” because it hinged on fundamental differences of how strictly the bible should be interpreted.

He described the demands being made on the Episcopal Church as “deeply unpalatable” for them.

Speaking in April, Dr Williams said: “It’s not just about nice people who want to include gay and lesbian Christians, and nasty people who want not to include them.

“The question is, really, ‘What are the forms of behaviour that the Church has the freedom or the authority to bless if it wants to be faithful to scripture and tradition?’

“That’s the question which is tearing us apart at the moment.”

Read it all.

Episcopal bishops gather today in New Orleans to consider their response to leaders of the parent church who want them to back down from their commitment to gays and lesbians.

One North Carolina bishop will bring a clear message: Don’t do it.

Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina has been listening to members of his diocese, many of whom say he should not bow to demands from the Anglican Communion that the American church stop ordaining openly gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions.

As one Episcopalian put it at a congregational meeting in Raleigh earlier this week, “We don’t dictate to them how they should behave, they shouldn’t dictate to us how we should behave.”

Read it all.

Dr Williams will make a week-long visit to Armenia, Syria and Lebanon following the US meeting, Lambeth Palace said.

A statement said his visit to Armenia was the result of an outstanding invitation from the Catholicos, His Holiness Karekin II, who heads the Armenian Apostolic Church.

His visit to Syria and Lebanon will be shorter and forms part of his continuing personal engagement with Christian churches in the Middle East and with leaders of other faiths in the region, the statement said.

The visit takes place at the invitation of the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Suhail Dawani, whose diocese covers these countries, and is being arranged in collaboration with the Middle East Council of Churches.

In Syria, as well as meetings with Christian leaders and the local Anglican community, Dr Williams will meet the Grand Mufti of Syria and the country’s president, Dr Bashar Al Asad.

Dr Williams’s trip following the US meeting will begin before America’s formal response to this issue and will also make him unavailable for conciliation before the September deadline.

Read it all.

If you read the Bible carefully, you may observe that the prophets reserve some of their strongest condemnations for lack of honesty””before God and before others. These people honor me with their lips, Isaiah says, but their hearts are far from me. The God of reality wants his people to face the reality about God, our world and ourselves, and we do nearly everything in our power to avoid it.

All this brings us to the central question facing the House of Bishops meeting this week in New Orleans: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen?

Again and again in Minneapolis in 2003 we heard that God is doing a new thing and that the gospel of justice demanded that we must change our teaching to say that persons in non-celibate same sex unions are appropriate models for Christian leadership. But now that the Archbishop of Canterbury is coming to town and there might be serious consequences, a number of bishops are coming to the meeting like Monty Hall seeking to play “Let’s Make a Deal!!” Instead of owning the new theology they have embraced, they are going to hide behind words and phrases which say one thing while a number of them believe and do something else.

You can arrange the subterfuge yourself. First they will say as Bishop Parsley said to the New York Times this week:

The primates want us to say that we don’t approve public rites of blessing, and we have not done that. They don’t want us to approve gay bishops in committed relationships, and the 2006 general convention resolution makes that unlikely. Basically, what I’m saying is that what they are asking is essentially already the case.

So some are going to claim they are already doing two of the three things they have been asked, and then you add some kind of new Primatial Vicar proposal and–tada!–the institutional smokescreen is up.

Ah, but we need to pay attention to the man behind the curtain because what you see in the Episcopal Church is not what you get.

First, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the key issue of whether there is “local pastoral provision” for same sex blessings in certain parts of the Episcopal Church. Here is the wording in the relevant section of the Tanzania communique:

There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

The activist group Integrity says it knows of 11 dioceses that have official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships:
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware [Bishop Wright’s office will only provide a copy to other bishops, apparently]
Long Island
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington

Beyond these, there are numerous others which allow for blessings ”“ Newark, [see also here], Los Angeles, Massachusetts [see also here, and here], New York, and the list could go on.

For example the just consecrated new bishop of Olympia said just recently:

he is comfortable continuing Bishop Warner’s stance of letting individual priests decide whether to perform blessing ceremonies for same-sex unions.

The other key phrase is the phrase from Lambeth 1998 1.10, that Anglicans

…cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions

The Bishop of New Jersey just said recently in a New Jersey newspaper:

We in the Diocese of New Jersey respect the discernment of the local congregations as they search for and call clergy to serve in leadership. All clergy candidates are subject to the same reference and background checks, including conversations with the bishops and deployment officers of those applying from other dioceses. Among the questions that I always ask is the following, based upon one of the ordination vows in our Book of Common Prayer: “Is this priest’s personal life a wholesome example to the people?”
I believe that gay and lesbian clergy, living in monogamous, faithful and stable unions, are a wholesome example to the people of our churches. Once assured of that, I welcome congregations to call such clergy to lead them in their life and ministry.
I have met the Rev. Debra Bullock, who comes with the very highest recommendations from her seminary faculty and from the clergy and lay leaders where she served in Chicago. She is a faithful, dedicated, hard-working, warm and talented priest. She will bring new life and new energy to St. Barnabas in Villas and to St. Mary’s, Stone Harbor.

This IS legitimizing a non-celibate same sex relationship for someone ordained, and it is against the mind and teaching of the Anglican Communion.

Second, the bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others who gather in New Orleans need to focus on the inadequacy of resolution B033 as passed in a hurried and confusing manner on the last day of General Convention 2006. [note from elves: and dissented to immediately by a group of up to 20 bishops, and rejected by at least 9 dioceses at their diocesan conventions last year]

It is very important to quote over and over again the key section of the Windsor Report which invites TEC 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” (Windsor Report 134)

Notice three things. First, it is a specific aspect of the person’s life in view””their involvement in a non-celibate same sex union. Second, it is both a moratorium on the election and on the consent to such a person. So it is not just the consent process which is spoken about. Third, VERY IMPORTANT, note that it has a time frame “until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”

With regard to the SECOND aspect just mentioned, it is worthwhile to recall the resolution proposed by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion for the General Convention 2006 (this wording never made it to the floor but it is important in that it shows the intent of Windsor in this regard WAS understood by the special commission):

Proposed resolution A161 read:

Resolved, the House of _____ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

Please observe that the committee included nomination, election and consent as all these were clearly in view. In the last two years three dioceses””California, Newark and now Chicago, have nominated non-celibate same sex parterned persons to be finalists for bishop in their dioceses. This is not what the Anglican Communion asked for.

Resolution B033 reads

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

Note that the focus has been broadened and is no longer on the specific issue that Windsor asked for, that the nomination and election aspects are eliminated, and that there is no time frame specified.

In the Episcopal Church we have not done what was requested of us in either case. Bishop Parsley is wrong.

Finally, any discussion of the Tanzania Primatial Vicar proposal–which was rejected by the House of Bishops when they last met, and by the Executive Council thereafter–does not matter until BOTH of these first two matters are resolved and TEC’s leadership makes clear that it will do what the Anglican Communion wants.

I for one will be delighted if all of these issues are resolved on the terms which were called for, and the Anglican Communion finds a future of unity in truth which God intends for us as we proceed further into the twenty-first century. But it must come as we honor the Lord with our lips and our hearts.

So, my prayer for New Orleans is for HONESTY. The leadership of the Episcopal Church changed its teaching and practice climactically in 2003 and moved it away from that of the Anglican Communion. God did a new thing and justice had to be done. So let the TEC leaders have the courage of their convictions and say what they actually believe before God and the global Anglican leaders. If they fail to do so, where is the justice in that?