A task group has been appointed to “maintain conversation” among the Primates of the Anglican Communion as requested during the Primates’ Gathering and Meeting in Canterbury Cathedral in January. The Primates asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish the group as part of their commitment to “walk together” despite “deep differences”….

The members of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s task group are:

Archbishop Richard Clarke from the Church of Ireland; Presiding Bishop Michael Curry from the US-based Episcopal Church; Bishop Govada Dyvasirvadam, Moderator of Church of South India;Archbishop Ian Ernest, from the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean; Archbishop Philip Freier, from the Anglican Church of Australia; Archbishop Ng Moon Hing, from the Province of South East Asia; Canon Rosemary Mbogo, the Provincial Secretary of the Anglican Church of Kenya; the Rt Revd Linda Nicholls, co-adjutor bishop of the diocese of Huron in the Anglican Church of Canada; the former vice chair of the ACC, Canon Elizabeth Paver, from the Church of England; and Bishop Paul Sarker, the Moderator of the Church of Bangladesh.

Read it all.

Canon [Andy] Lines’s presence in the UK without Welby’s approval could be seen as provocative. But Lines’s backers complain that the Archbishop failed to rebuke the Scottish Episcopalians for permitting gay marriage, even though it is out of step with Church of England official policy.

The former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a prominent traditionalist who is attending the meeting in Chicago where Canon Lines is to be consecrated, said: ‘The Scottish Episcopal Church has done something that will cause many people to exercise their right of conscience and not remain in it. Who is going to look after them?
‘The question is not just about territory. It is also about faith.’

Read it all.

We continue to exhort the need to work together without exclusion, in faithfulness to the deposit of the faith we have inherited, to the scriptures and the creeds, and paying attention to the Great Commission, our call to evangelism and sharing in the mission of God.

I believe that the example of how we addressed the separate issue of ordination of women to the episcopacy illustrates this; the Right Reverend Rod Thomas’ consecration as Bishop of Maidstone served to provide episcopal oversight for those who disagreed with the ordination of women to the episcopate. This clearly demonstrates how those with differing views still have their place in the Church of England, and are important in enabling the flourishing of the Church. Because of this commitment to each other I do not consider the appointment of a “missionary bishop” to be necessary. The idea of a “missionary bishop” who was not a Church of England appointment, would be a cross-border intervention and, in the absence of a Royal Mandate, would carry no weight in the Church of England. Historically, there has been resistance to cross-border interventions and ordinations from the earliest years of the universal Church’s existence. Such weighty authority as canons 15 and 16 of the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 are uncompromising in this regard and make reference to the “great disturbance and discords that occur” when bishops and their clergy seek to minister in this way.

I would also like to remind you of the 1988 Lambeth Conference resolution number 72 on episcopal responsibilities and diocesan boundaries. This resolution reaffirms the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries. It also affirms that it deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof. The conclusion of this resolution was that in order to maintain our unity, “it seems fair that we should speak of our mutual respect for one another, and the positions we hold, that serves as a sign of our unity.”

The issue of cross-border interventions has continued to come up in recent conversations within the Anglican Communion, and may well be something that is included in the agenda for the next Primates’ meeting, which takes place from 2 to 7 October 2017, in Canterbury.

Read it all.

Just three months afterward, the Anglican Consultative Council (a deliberative body in which lay persons, clergy, bishops and Primates all take part as elected representatives of their respective denominations) held its sixteenth triennial meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. Representatives from ECUSA attended, but refused to honor the Primates’ requirement to abstain from certain deliberations of the Council having to do with “doctrine or polity.” Nor did the Council bar them from doing so.

The Episcopal delegates not only refused, but they gloated about the Council’s refusal even to consider the Primates’ requirement. In an open letter they sent to ECUSA after the meeting, which was published in the official Episcopal News Service, they reported that although Archbishop Welby had communicated the results of the January meeting to the Council, “ACC members seemed to have little energy for answering the primates’ call for consequences”.

Thus just as they flouted Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference in 2003, when they approved the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson contrary to that Resolution, and just as they have repeatedly, in the years since, rejected all calls to change their course, ECUSA is determined to walk apart from the former Communion while keeping up the pretense that their actions have not turned it into a Disunion. (“How could it be a ‘Disunion’?” I hear them asking. “We still attend all its meetings!”)

Not only do they insist on exercising their full authority and rights when it comes to participation in Anglican-wide affairs, but they rub it in the GAFCON Primates’ faces every chance they get. For instance, Archbishop Welby has invited all Anglican Primates (with the exception of ACNA’s, whom he had invited the previous year) to another meeting at Canterbury next October. Just last week, the official news organ of the Anglican [Dis]union published a story about his invitation, and his expectations for the meeting. In the process, they rather loosely characterized ECUSA’s actions at ACC-16 in Lusaka (by serving up what is called “Anglican fudge” to describe what happened).

The ECUSA delegates to that meeting issued a response challenging the story’s accuracy, and ACNS had to add some further explanation by way of making the fudge thicker. (See the updated story here, and the explanation at the end. What ACNS added is the last sentence to the next-to-last paragraph.)

The upshot is that ECUSA once again saw to it that the other Primates were told in no uncertain terms that ECUSA had never yet acceded to their demands, and was not about to change its course.

Read it all (my emphasis).

From here:

The agreement from the January Primates meeting in 2016 was broken when The Episcopal Church (TEC) took part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity and doctrine in Lusaka. Equally damaging, was an attempt by the Anglican Communion Office to deny the fact by claiming that, technically, the process included no formal votes. This is sophistry.

The Primates agreement in January was never limited to the narrow issue of the method of voting. It said that “[The Episcopal Church] will not to take part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity or doctrine.” [Primates 2016 Communique]
Whether a meeting uses a consensus model, or a voice vote, or paper ballots, or electronic ballots is of no relevance. The Episcopal Church was not to take part in decision making on issues pertaining to polity or doctrine. They did.

As the GAFCON Primates Council has said: “The future of the Anglican Communion does not lie with manipulations, compromises, legal loopholes, or the presentation of half-truths; the future of our Communion lies in humble obedience to the truth of the Word of God written.” [Gafcon Primates Communique, April 2016]

Read it all. The ACNS then altered their article based on this response. You can see both versions there; make sure to read them and compare the differences.

Read it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Jim Naughton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

It is now perfectly clear that the meeting failed in its intention. Far from being rebuked, the leaders of the Episcopal Church said that they intend to continue in their present course and indeed to export their ideas vigorously to the rest of the world.

It seems, from what the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion is communicating, that repentance was never required ”“ which makes the disciplinary measures rather strange.

The mild discipline which was imposed was at once put to the test at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and fundamentally (though not entirely) failed to hold.

Astonishingly, the membership of the taskforce set up to continue the business of the meeting, contains no GAFCON Primate, although Presiding Bishop Michael Curry of the TEC is a member. At best, this is an error of judgement. In truth, it seems symbolic of an unfortunate disdain for the leaders of some of the most thriving of the Provinces in the Communion.

Read it all.

In the last week, there has been news of a potential Primates’ Meeting scheduled to begin October 2, 2017. Consequently, we have received a number of inquiries, both from the media and our membership, asking the question of whether or not the Gafcon Primates will attend.

For all who had hoped that attendance at the January 2016 Primates’ Gathering might restore godly order to the Communion, the results were clearly discouraging. Gafcon is fully committed to guarding the unchanging truth of the Gospel, and restoring the Bible to the heart of the Anglican Communion. In due course, the Gafcon Primates will take counsel and together make a decision about the wisdom of attending future meetings.

The next meeting of the Gafcon Primates’ Council is in April of 2017. We give thanks for the courage that is being shown by our members across the globe, as they share God’s Word both “in season and out of season.” Please continue to pray for the continued growth of this reformation movement.

(Via email-KSH)

The Archbishop of Canterbury is to call another meeting of the worldwide Archbishops of the Anglican Communion in a further attempt to heal divisions over sexuality.
At the last meeting in January this year, “consequences” were imposed on The Episcopal Church of the United States over its decision to go ahead with same-sex marriage.
The Church in Canada is subsequently agreed this summer to do the same, although a second vote on the issue will not take place for another three years….

Read it all.

In an email sent by staffers at the Anglican Consultative Council to the primates and moderators of the church on 27 July 2016, the ACC stated that date had “been selected as the date for the next Primates’ Meeting. The meeting will take place in Canterbury. We will write with a formal letter of invitation in due course but I would be most grateful if you would now confirm this date in your diary.”

Read it all.

Two weeks ago, I went to London and met with Archbishop Justin specifically to ask the question, ‘Will this also apply to us if we complete the process of Canonical change in 2017?’ The answer is that it will. Most directly, I will be removed from the role of Anglican Co-Chair of the International Anglican-Reformed Dialogue. But other effects are limited. Our bishops will be present and fully involved in the Lambeth Conference planned for 2020. We shall continue to be actively involved in our network of Diocesan Companionships and in the Anglican Networks.

Let me try and explain to you what has happened and what has changed.

The Anglican Communion does not have a central authority, The Provinces – of which our own SEC is one – are autonomous. But clearly we owe a duty and respect to other Provinces, We sometimes say ‘autonomous and interdependent’. That delicate balance becomes stressed when Provinces which live in very different contexts address the changing context in which they live in very different ways.

The Global North is experiencing massive social change in respect of human sexuality – not that the church simply follows that. The Global South – and in particular Sub-Saharan Africa – remains deeply conservative and is under pressure from the Islamisation of Africa. The legacy of colonialism makes measured and respectful dialogue very difficult. Different understandings of collegiality and leadership confuse expectations about how issues will be addressed.

Read it all.

Read it all.

In receiving the Archbishop of Canterbury’s formal report of the Primates’ Gathering and Meeting, ACC16 neither endorsed nor affirmed the consequences contained in the Primates’ Communiqué. There was no plenary discussion or decision with respect to the Primates’ Communiqué. From our perspective there did not seem to be a common mind on the issue, other than the clear commitment to avoid further confrontation and division. ACC16 did welcome the call for the Instruments of Communion and the Provinces to continue to walk together as they discern the way forward. No consequences were imposed by the ACC and neither was the ACC asked to do so.

During the meeting there were many opportunities, both formal and informal, to explore the ACC16 theme of ”˜Intentional discipleship in a world of differences.” This was done faithfully and respectfully.

Read it all.

With thanks to Kevin Kallsen and George Conger at Anglican TV

The council also elected five representatives to the communion’s Standing Committee. They are:

Diocese of Edmonton Bishop Jane Alexander, Anglican Church of Canada
Alistair Dinnie, Scottish Episcopal Church
Jeroham Melendez, Anglican Church of the Region of Central America
The Rev. Nigel Pope, Church of North India (United)
Bishop of Nairobi Joel Waweru, Anglican Church of Kenya

Read it all

This week, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), one of the four Anglican “Instruments of Communion,” is meeting in Lusaka, Zambia. In the life of a desperately compromised institution, it has been no surprise that the decision of the overwhelming number of Primates of the Anglican Communion has been ignored. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has not only led the rebellious charge to incorporate sexual practices that are proscribed by Scripture, but they (and a few other Anglican Provinces) also have gone a step further”¦they are blessing what God calls sin.

What is absolutely remarkable is the great absence of institutional voices to say that what TEC (and other similarly minded Provinces) is doing is wrong. It’s not really hard. W.R.O.N.G. Easy to say, but it isn’t being said.

Instead, the emphasis is on “positive” contributions from TEC and on apologizing to “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,Transgendered, ”˜Questioning,’ and ”˜Inquiring’” (LGBTQI) people. Most of the apologies center around asking for forgiveness for not fully incorporating those with leanings or behaviors of LEBTQI into the life (and leadership) of the Church.

Read it all

The Archbishop and Primate of Hong Kong, the Most Revd Dr Paul Kwong, has been elected as the new chair of the Anglican Consultative Council ”“ the legally constituted body that brings together Anglican churches from around the world.

Read it all

..Let me speak very personally. One of the most painful elements of the present crisis for me has been the lack of leadership in places from which one could have expected it. I can understand TEC; her leadership make no secret of their theology or the reasons why they take the stand they do.

But what I find most painful is the silence or prevarication of those who don’t agree with the new sexual ethic, who understand that our ministry is the ministry of the word of God, but who say nothing except to distance themselves from a movement like GAFCON.

Where is Elijah?

I have sat in the room with Primates who have spoken with evident deep pain about the way in which the ones they have looked to for clear teaching and leadership, have failed to say publicly what God’s word says.

More, when I mix with ”˜the ordinary person in the pew’, people who have always understood that we are meant to obey the word of God, when these people seek to live and speak for Christ in a culture which has abandoned God, they too are bewildered and dismayed by a leadership which has not given them voice and hope…

Read it all

..A recent wave of church developments, similar to what has happened in New York, has at least three of them rebuilding sites, sparking debate about urban planning and heritage preservation, as well as whether religious institutions are exploiting land intended for non-profit use.
….
The Anglican Church plans to build two towers of 18 floors and 11 floors as part of a redevelopment near Lan Kwai Fong. The land currently has historic buildings, including the 166-year-old bishop’s house and a church that was used by Japanese soldiers during the second world war as a training school.

In the deal reached and approved by the government in 2011, the Anglican Church will preserve the heritage buildings at its own cost. The two new towers will be used for facilities including a church, kindergarten and a medical centre, according to a June 2011 government document.

A representative of the church was unavailable for comment on the development.

The Anglican Diocese’s St John’s Cathedral built in 1849 sits on the only freehold plot of land in the city in the shadow of Central’s soaring office towers. Other land in Hong Kong is owned by the government and sold for long-term leases.

“Those land sites that they acquired in colonial times have become their biggest assets today,” said Ng Cho-nam, a former member of the Antiquities Advisory Board, a government body advising on heritage issues in the city. While maximising the value of their land, churches should take heritage into consideration as they had close relationship with the city during its development as a former colony, he said.

Previously, the church partnered with Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong (Holdings) in 1993 to build a residential complex on a site it was using as an orphanage, which was set to be relocated, in a suburban district. The church and its foundation earned about HK$1.1 billion from selling homes and parking spaces at the project, a legal document showed.

Read it all and there is an update here

The pro-democracy Occupy protests last year divided Hong Kong and violence has become more frequent, Archbishop Paul Kwong said on Sunday.
…..
“Our city has been divided and fragmented after the Occupy Movement and the dispute over political reform last year. When dealing with people and social issues, we begin to see a more frequent use of violent language and behaviours rather than mutual trust, tolerance, objectivity and rationality.”

The Archbishop ended his message by calling for an accepting and tolerant attitude, as it was the only way a society of mutual trust,
….
Paul Kwong has made controversial remarks in the past. Last year, he said that some of the protesters at the July First march joined out of a herd mentality. He also asked why the arrested demonstrators “didn’t bring their Filipino maids to the march,”

Read it all

Members of the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, will elect a new chair tomorrow and will have the choice of two candidates with significant knowledge of global Anglicanism: Professor Joanildo Burity from Brazil and Archbishop Paul Kwong from Hong Kong.

Read it all and AB Kwong may be seen here at the Primates Gathering Press Conference

In a rare interview, his second since taking over the helm at the church in 2007, the Most Reverend Paul Kwong told the Post that, contrary to accusations, he was not a government yes-man. He claimed he had, behind closed doors, urged officials to communicate with different sectors and explain their policies more clearly and frequently.

Kwong declined to say if he supported Leung’s re-election, but he said he believed the chief executive “loves Hong Kong”.

Read it all

Top Anglican official in Hong Kong defends multi-million dollar flat and past comments critical of Occupy protesters

In rare interview, Most Reverend Paul Kwong explains to Post his comments generating media attention two years ago and today
In a rare interview, Most Reverend Paul Kwong spoke with the Post on questions raised in the media about his political stances and why he resided at upscale Pacific View complex on Tai Tam Road. It was reported that the apartment cost the church HK$13.4 million in 2006. The latest public records involving Pacific View flats indicated transactions in recent months ranging from HK$19 million to HK$38 million.

When asked why he did not follow his predecessors’ example of staying at Bishop House in Central, Kwong said the building, built in 1851, was too spacious for an unmarried bishop like him.
………
In July 2014, Kwong talked about “peace of mind” in a sermon and questioned why Hongkongers “speak up so much”. He asked at the time why protesters who complained about being denied water after they were arrested at a sit-in in Central did not “bring along their Filipino maids”.

Read it all

The Archbishop of Kenya has denied that he signed or approved a letter released under his signature that appeared to change Kenya’s stance on its boycott of the meeting of Anglican leaders in Zambia this week.

The Most Rev Eliud Wabukala told Anglican Ink that the forgery was a ruse to defy his authority and justify the attendance of the Kenyan delegation in Lusaka.

Read it all

..What I find most striking about these recent events is not the dysfunction and disobedience of Bishop Waweru (one would expect as much of a “bishop” involved in “dialogue” with heretics), but the political ineptitude and foolishness of Archbishop Idowu-Fearon. Does he really want to stand behind a lie or a liar? Does he really want to accept a delegation to the ACC that sits in defiance of its own province? Isn’t seating this delegation at ACC16 an open affirmation of Bishop Waweru’s deception? Isn’t the ACC now taking an active role in the subversion of a legitimately elected Anglican Communion Primate?

On what basis or foundation can any ACC official decry colonialism? One does not need to be a prophet to see that this is nothing less than a bald shameless attempt to undermine a sitting Anglican primate who does not toe the Canterbury line and replace him with a toady.

Read it all UPDATE: See also Forged Documents and Subversion

The Archbishop of Kenya did not sign, nor did he approve, a letter released under his signature that was posted to the provincial website that purported to change the church’s stance on its boycott of ACC-16 in Lusaka.

In an 11 April 2016 interview, the Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala confirmed the forgery was a ruse to justify the attendance of the Kenyan delegation to the meeting and to “defy my authority.”

Archbishop Wabukala explained he had been in Marsabit brokering an end to clashes between pastoralists and farmers in northern Kenya when “I found the delegation from Kenya were ready to go,” with air tickets and travel reservations in hand. Aware of the archbishop’s opposition to their attending the meeting, the leader of the delegation, the Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru, Bishop of Nairobi telephoned and asked for a meeting in the provincial office with the archbishop and the two other delegates..

Read it all and see also:

Kenya 8: AU 224 – Kenya, Canterbury, ACC and 815
Kenya 7: [Matt Kennedy] Anglican Colonialists and the Subversion of a Kenyan Province
Kenya 5: [AI] Primate of Kenya refutes claims from ACC 16
Kenya 4: Bishop Idowu-Fearon comments on TEC Standing Committee membership and Kenya
Kenya 3: Fraud and Forgery Allegations Raised at ACC 16 [with copy falsified letter]
Kenya 2: [ACK] Statement on Anglican Consultative Council 16, Lusaka
Kenya 1: Archbishop Wabukala responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Letter to Primates