Steve Waring has two new articles posted for TLC.

The first is a brief article “Writing Group Presents House of Bishops With Draft”

He outlines what happened and identifies the members of the working group. His summary:

Aside from a brief positive reference to a pastoral scheme based around delegated pastoral episcopal oversight (DEPO), the statement offered few new proposals with respect to the three requests made of The Episcopal Church by the primates in their communique last February. The statement noted that the Windsor Report had commended DEPO and suggested that this could form the basis for a way acceptable to the bishops for ministering to minority groups that are unable to accept the current direction of The Episcopal Church on issues of human sexuality.

The statement also noted that the church’s position on same-sex blessings has not been well received by a significant number of Anglicans worldwide, but no details on how the situation might be improved. It was largely silent on the possible consecration of additional partnered homosexual persons as bishops.

You can read it all here.

The second is entitled: Bishops Struggle to Craft Satisfactory Statement

As members of the House of Bishops began filing out of the plenary hall for lunch Monday, several expressed dissatisfaction with the direction taken in the draft statement proposed by the writing committee. The proposed draft attempted to incorporate the main points contained in many of the resolutions previously submitted for consideration, albeit with watered-down language in at least some cases.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori suggested that the statement by the writing committee should be considered a substitute version of the original resolutions that were submitted. The writing committee is not scheduled to present a revised draft of its statement until Tuesday morning, the final day of the House of Bishops’ Sept. 20-25 meeting in New Orleans.

“We need to give the Archbishop of Canterbury something more than this,” said Bishop John Chane of Washington. Bishop Chane said he would seek a point of privilege to debate a revised version of a resolution that Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana originally submitted before the meeting began. Bishop Chane said he and Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles had been working with Bishop Jenkins to perfect the original language.

Under the rules of procedure by which the house is governed, Bishop Chane’s motion may be denied or accepted for a vote by Bishop Jefferts Schori, who presides. If accepted, his proposal to change the agenda would require approval from a majority of those present.

In other news from Monday morning, the joint steering committee of the primates and the Anglican Consultative Council held their private meeting this morning.

The full article is here.

A work in progress … we’ll be adding to this throughout the day as we come across interesting blog entries, etc. Feel free to post links in the comments.

This is for now very rough, but we’re juggling a lot of stuff. (Note posts are in the order I came across them in my RSS feed reader.)

Peter Ould

How’s it going in New Orleans?

it seems a bit one-sided of the House of Bishops to demand that the rest of the Communion engage in the Listening Process while they ignore every other line of the relevant 1998 Lambeth Resolution. And if the best defence for this weekend’s activities in Holywood is that the rite used for this ceremony wasn’t authorised, and therefore didn’t conflict with B033, then it’s really time to move on isn’t it?

=========

Baby Blue: A Few Thoughts
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/few-thoughts.html

What really struck me more than anything from not only this “draft statement” but also from the comments from the bishops themselves, is that they are “reinventing the subreport” that was presented to the primates in Dar es Salaam and rejected.

==========

David Trimble:
The Native Americans are Circling the Caucasian Cavalry Oppressors
http://stillonpatrol.typepad.com/still_on_patrol/2007/09/the-native-amer.html

With deference to the clear words of Archbishop Mouneer Anis (see below post), this seven points draft is but another way TCGC is saying to the rest of the Anglican Communion that “we know the truth and you don’t.” While this document is yet another collection of TCGC obfuscation and politically correct phrasing, its meaning and import are clear. TCGC has no intent to admit that it has chosen to walk apart from the remainder of the Communion, but instead thinks the Communion should continue the ubiquitous “listening process”, i.e., listen to TCGC until your brain turns to mush and you agree.

==========

Anne Kennedy+
Communion Chaos
http://undercurrentofhostility.blogspot.com/2007/09/communion-chaos.html

Second, it occurs to me, after these many months and years of Anglican Conflict, that while all of us have been taking this seriously-pouring over documents, trying to understand the Windsor Report, the Dromontine Communique, the Dar Communique, various letters from Rowan Williams, Camp Allen Statements, and now resolutions in the HOB-these Bishops HAVE NEVER TAKEN THIS SERIOUSLY. If they’ve read any of the necessary documents, they haven’t bothered to understand them. If they’ve listened to advice and counsel from Primates and others, they bothered to HEAR. In other words, this has never been a real engagement. They’ve never been serious about the communion. Even this morning, after Matt’s careful study of Howe’s Proposal, and we, reading carefully and considering and praying for God’s will, these Bishop’s Never Considered the option before them.

==========

Dave Sims at Covenant

Not Exactly “Radical”: The Proposed HOB Statement
http://covenant-communion.com/?p=185

It’s pretty disheartening on a first read. Keep in mind that this is a “Preliminary Draft Document.” But it seems +Howe’s proposal didn’t get much traction. The requested clarification on B033 seems to sum up the general attitude of the entire document:

We have attempted to respond to the Primates questions regarding Resolution B033. in honesty we must report that within the HOB there is disagreement as to how this resolution is to be interpreted and applied. As we live with this painful reality, conversation study and prayer will continue. We recognize the challenge our disagreement presents for some in the Communion and we respectfully ask for their patience and forbearance.

=========

Ruth Gledhill

Fishy Business
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/

A source in New Orleans tells me the House of Bishops, due to finish their deliberations later today, are like a ‘shoal of fish’. The source, who is inside the meeting, says: ‘They are all swimming in the same direction. The difficulty is knowing which direction they are going in. They could suddenly move off together in a completely different direction. It is wide open still.’

==========

Captain Yips

Rated R for Gore and Violence
http://captainyips.typepad.com/journal/2007/09/rated-r-for-gor.html

It’s painful reading. +Howe’s plan offered a flicker of light. But at this point, absent genuine repentance and reversal of course, we should be happy for the completely stand-pat statement that seems likely to emerge.

Over the last couple of days, I’ve begun to wonder if ++Rowan Williams has not found a formula for dealing with TEC that can be unanimously accepted by all the primates, based on whether TEC can be taken at its word. I grasp at straws, maybe, because I do not want to see the Anglican Communion wrecked upon TEC’s infatuation with the Newest Thing.

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

More from Baby Blue:

Afternoon Session
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/afternoon-session.html

There is something sort of surreal here about talking about Lambeth as though there isn’t anything wrong, as though it’s “business as usual.” The presentation is as though this is 1997, not 2007 and we’re all One Big Happy Family. It’s sort of weird to hear Ian talking about and there’s Gene Robinson sitting there. TEC must be pretty confident that he’s going, no matter what. Why else would they be so rude to talk about a party that he’s not invited to.

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

Chip Webb

Words Matter: The House of Bishops Continues in Denial
http://anglicanaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/words-matter-house-of-bishops-continues.html

Arguably the strongest word in the document is “imperil,” and take two guesses as to in which context the writers use it.

Do they say that the Episcopal Church’s actions have “imperiled” the Anglican Communion? Nope.

Do they say that the Episcopal Church’s actions have “imperiled” the unity of the Episcopal Church, even with the loss of thousands of Anglicans as a result of those actions? Guess again.

Here it is:

“We pray that a way forward can be found which will bring an end to the incursions of extra-provincial bishops. These incursions imperil the Communion’s principle of honoring one another as we work together in good faith on these very difficult issues” (emphasis my own).

Two excerpts from Cherie Wetzel’s latest report for Anglicans United:

At 10:45, during their coffee break, the meeting was opened and we flocked like lemmings to the large chamber that houses the meeting.

The Writing Committee that has been charged with preparing the Statement ”“ and worked all weekend ”“ presented the Statement. It was distributed to members of the House and then read aloud by the committee. After this, there was 15 minutes of discussion at the tables (The House is organized into 20 table groups of 6-8 people that meet from one General Convention to the next.) Usually, the tables respond as a table. Today, individuals responded to the statement, making suggestions for its change. A second draft will be written this afternoon and evening and presented to the House for finalization tomorrow.

The initial draft is 4 pages single-spaced, and is a chatty narrative about the fun things done here in New Orleans, interspersed with the responses to the Dar es Salaam communiqué. Several bishops requested that the one document be split into two. The first must clearly and without equivocation, respond to the Dar questions. And the second can discuss other aspects of the meeting.

I do not know if press will be allowed back in the meeting this afternoon, and will not tell you about any other details of the statement at this point. It is not a finished document. I am constantly reminded that people read what I write in order to made decisions about whether they will stay or flee from the Episcopal Church (TEC). It is not “soup” yet, to quote Campbell’s. The direction is not clear.

[…]

So, lets be clear about how to direct your prayer time today. The Hose has several resolutions they are considering this afternoon and the Statement is a matter of high priority. Please pray that they insist on and succeed in making the clearest possible response to Dar es Salaam. All are aware of the Episcopal Fudge remarks about their previous work. And, I truly believe they want to avoid that kind of label on this document.

And please pray that they will have the patience to sit through the rest of the meeting and a spirit of generosity towards each other. They must prioritize their responses to the rest of the Communion and that will take patience and magnanimity.

The full post is here.

To see all of Cherie’s reports, go to the Anglicans United News page

I thought it might be helpful to extract the bishops’ seven points from the rest of the verbiage of their proposed statement. Here they are:

1. We affirm and support the PB’s plan to provide Episcopal visitors for dioceses within the Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report (paragraph 152) affirmed that our plan for DEPO is reasonable and saw no reason why such delegated pastoral and sacramental oversight should not be provided by bishops from within this province. We believe the Presiding Bishop’s plan is consistent with DEPO and we thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry.

2. While we have already expressed concerns about the recommendations made by the Primates for a pastoral scheme, we nonetheless urge the PB to continue conversations with those requesting alternative oversight, seeking ways to create and implement arrangements which meet pastoral needs and which do not violate our Constitution and Canons. We urge those requesting such oversight to participate in these conversations and to assist in finding appropriate solutions. We pray that a way forward can be found which will bring an end to the incursions of extra-provincial bishops. These incursions imperil the Communions principle of honoring one another as we work together in good faith on these very difficult issues.

3. We continue to invite all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to join in the listening process which was embraced by the 1998 Lambeth Conference I prayerfully considering the place of gay and lesbian people in our common life. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process from every province if the communion and to our own continuing participation with others in this crucial project. We see an important role for the ACC in helping to accomplish this objective, as well as in addressing other important issues that come before us. The ACC is representative of both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and it is the only body possessing a written constitution.

4. We have attempted to respond to the Primates questions regarding Resolution B033. in honesty we must report that within the HOB there is disagreement as to how this resolution is to be interpreted and applied. As we live with this painful reality, conversation study and prayer will continue. We recognize the challenge our disagreement presents for some in the Communion and we respectfully ask for their patience and forbearance.

5. Because we are a liturgical church our actions concerning
blessings are expressed in public liturgies. No rite of blessing for
persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our
General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of
Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies. Even in the
absence of such public rites, we acknowledge that the blessing of
same sex unions, no matter how public or private, is unacceptable to
some of our brothers and sisters in our own House, in our church, and
in the Communion. The issue remains perplexing for us as we seek to
balance these concerns about rites of blessing and the pressing
pastoral need that confronts us. We wish to offer respect for these
differing viewpoints.

We are grateful that the Primates have articulated their support for
meeting the individual pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons. In
2003 they wrote “there is a duty of pastoral care that is laid upon
all Christians to respond with love and understanding to homosexual
persons.” The Primates have writeen that there must be a breadth of
private and pastoral responses to individual situations. It is the
case that for many decades, the Episcopal Church has explored the
most faithful ways of ministering to and with gay and lesbian people
who are part of our common life. We acknowledge that in some of our
dioceses this includes the blessing of same sex unions.

6. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008
Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and
expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with
bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish those
relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on
those partnerships.

We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received
an invitation to Lambeth. We are also mindful that the Archbishop of
Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way to include Bishop
Robinson in the Lambeth Conference. Because we believe that this is a
matter of importance to the House of Bishops, we propose that the
Archbishop of Canterbury invite a small group of bishops appointed by
the Presiding Bishop to assist him in facilitating Bishop Robinson’s
presence and participation.

7. We reaffirm our March 2007 statement in which we said, “We
proclaim the Gospel of what God has done is doing in Christ, of the
dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace.
We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no
male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in
Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal
participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We proclaim the Gospel
that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons,
are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church. We
proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including
violence done to women and children as well as those who are
persecuted because of their difference, often in the name of God.”

To read these points in their context go here.

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrapped up the conference by saying the work is “just beginning.”

Speaking Friday from a mission trip in Ghana, Bishop Martyn Minns, a former Episcopal priest in Fairfax, Va., who now leads a Nigerian-aligned Anglican group in the USA, said he was saddened by the continuing lack of resolution.

“My sense is that the Communion is being reshaped, and that it will someday be expressed in different ways. The U.S. bishops are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong,” Minns said.

Read it all.

From here:

This is predictably bad. The entire point of the CA gatherings is/has been to provide a credible ”˜minority report’ which will have an afterlife when this is over and join up with the Primates and show a way forward for those who do not participate in the odd group-speak of the loudest TEC bishops. The resolve of the CA bishops is crucial, if there is to be a credible minority report when the dust from this (tiresome, predictable) cavalcade is over. Listening to Doss or Charles for more than five mimutes would be like sitting in a Dante netherworld. How do these CA bishops and allies endure this? It’s like a faculty meeting of 100 trying to write a document. Absurd.

It is a book to be written which would describe the almost hopeless polity of TEC. Too many bishops, too few people, spread out over a vast region and so necessitating something like this, but almost requiring tacit agreements to work””and these are no longer there except on the Left”¦

A conservative Anglican theologian believes the Episcopal Church will attempt to formulate a compromise that falls short of demands put forth by world Anglican leaders.

Episcopal bishops are currently meeting in New Orleans to decide whether to obey an order from the international leadership of the Anglican Communion that calls for an end to the consecration of homosexual bishops and blessings of “same-sex unions”. The Episcopal Church has until September 30 to comply with the order, or risk losing its membership in the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Dr. Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, says it is very unlikely the Episcopal Church will agree with what Anglican leaders are asking. He says the denomination is in denial about its drift from Biblical truth.

“What’s so frustrating about the Episcopal Church,” Harmon says, “is they make changes and then when it comes to crunch time, they won’t admit that they [made] changes, and instead they play games with words, and they say one thing and do another. And that’s what’s going to be attempted in New Orleans.”

Harmon notes that some Episcopal bishops are not so timid, noting several liberal Episcopal bishops, including those of North Carolina, Newark, Massachusetts and California, who have made it clear that they embrace “a new theology” and that they refuse to waver from their present course of embracing homosexuality.

Read it all.

Drawing on some powerful imagery from JRR Tolkein, Sarah Hey at Stand Firm outlines her hopes for how the Windsor Bishops will act in these crucial days:

For several years now, I have been clear with myself and others about what I hope for and seek. I believe that the Anglican vision of the church and the gospel is the most beautiful and complete Christian vision that there is. I want a disciplined, boundaried, ordered, and united Anglican Communion as the vehicle for that vision. I believe that such an Anglican Communion is the best, and probably the only hope for carrying that vision. It appears now highly unlikely that the Anglican Communion will discipline itself or further establish its ordered and clear identity — and thus the vehicle for carrying that vision to sinners will be lost, at least in the United States. Furthermore, because of my theology, numerous options that may be open for others are closed to me.

I understand that others do not believe as I do — but those who do, must take the path as it leads, regardless of any sadness or pain or defeat that may lie ahead.

This brings me to the Windsor bishops who are at this moment in the closed session of the House of Bishops meeting.

The temptation must be great for artificial closure — a shortcutting of the path that seems to lead to defeat. The honorable path is that of taking one’s stand for the clear and sole path towards the integrity and wholeness of the Anglican Communion — and that path is firmly standing for the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith and of the Anglican Communion. It is firmly standing for the principles espoused so clearly in the Windsor Report. And it is standing for the solution offered to the intractable problems that face us by the Dar es Salaam communique.

Down that path one must go. The ACI believes it. Kendall Harmon believes it. The staff at StandFirm believe it. In fact, there has rarely been such unity amongst conservatives in the Anglican Communion as today. All of us believe with our whole hearts that the path forward is Windsor and Dar and the outcry amongst us all, nearly to a person, is to please put to the floor a clear and forthright resolution that answers the questions of Dar, and vote as a stalwart unit for that resolution, making certain that your names are on the record for it.

But as we have learned — and I mean this personally, and am not pointing the finger at others — there are many opportunities for a conservative Episcopalian under immense pressure to betray one’s principles, one’s path, and one’s comrades. One might negotiate with other progressive bishops and produce a resolution that proves “acceptable” to a bare majority, but unacceptable to your fellow traditional bishops and which betrays the principles of the Windsor Report and the communique from the Primates. One might watch one’s comrades speak and urge for a clear statement, while remaining silent oneself. One might vote for the wrong resolution, in the hopes that it will pass without having to vote on the principled and clear resolution. One might refuse to let one’s vote be known, in the hopes of slipping quietly away. One might fail in defending the principled resolution from amendment, and then end up voting for the amended one as “the best we can do.” One might yield to the need of your diocese for money and aid. One might be tempted not to use the language asked for at Dar, but instead use “blurry words” that some revisionists might vote for. One might yield to the nearly irresistable temptation to save one’s diocese from the dissent and anxiety that may arise should a principled resolution come to the floor and be defeated. What will happen, an orthodox bishop may think, should I “step off that plane with no piece of paper that proclaims peace and stability for our time?”

Read it all.

If they do, Matt Kennedy is ready to live blog

BabyBlue is also liveblogging

The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church pledges itself in covenant to refrain from making local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in their dioceses until and unless a new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges and will discipline any bishop who permits local pastoral provision for same sex blessings in his or her diocese.

Note carefully that this language has a time period specified, it uses the language of the Tanzania Communique (“local pastoral provision for…blessings”) and the Windsor Report, AND there is discipline within the province for those who defy the covenantal pledge.

The four international speakers who have addressed the house all spoke critically of The Episcopal Church’s failure to consult adequately with its partners. They also mentioned how the church has made things worse by responding to requests for explanation with excuses about polity and cleverly worded statements that are contradicted by facts on the ground. Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt, Primate of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, had the most pointed criticism, but the criticism from Archbishop Phillip Aspinall of Australia came as something of a surprise because he and the Province of Australia are generally regarded as friendly to The Episcopal Church.

“We are deeply, tragically, horribly ”˜stuck,’ not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole,” said Bishop John Howe of Central Florida in the preface of a resolution he proposed. “In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to ”˜common discernment,’ and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions.”

Bishop Howe’s was one of at least two new resolutions known to be circulating for the first time since Friday. He does not think any of the proposals has achieved any momentum. This makes the job of the writing group appointed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori much more difficult.

Read it all.

Fr. Matt Kennedy of Stand Firm has a very interesting analysis of Bp. John Howe’s proposal. He offers point by point commentary. Here’s an excerpt:

Bishop John Howe’s proposal is not perfect. It would, had the Archbishop of Canterbury been willing call a Primates meeting between now and Lambeth and withdraw Lambeth invitations, be unnecessary. But in light of the Archbishop’s apparent unwillingness to do what his office demands, the only way to preserve Communion unity will be for the House of Bishops to act sacrificially.

Bishop Howe has offered a proposal to the House of Bishops that, if implemented, essentially accomplishes what the orthodox (in general) have been seeking while, at the same time, allowing the revisionists a gracious way to remain true to their theological and ecclesial convictions. There is, as Bishop Howe suggests, pain enough for all, but the brilliance of the proposal is that it does not require the sacrifice of core principles.

The proposal incorporates 8 points. Each point is listed below followed by a brief comment.

”1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.”

The resolution of the Windsor Bishops is best articulated in the MacPherson resolutions and as Bishop Howe notes, they are wholly consistent with the Dar Es Salaam (DES) Communique. This first step, voting on the MacPherson resolutions, is crucial because it, rightly, sets up the DES Communique as the criterion by which bishops identify themselves as Windsor or non-Windsor bishops. The DES Communique asks for honesty from the American church. Are we willing to abide both by the spirit and the letter of present Communion standards?

2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen )

.
This second step circumvents one of the more intractable difficulties in our current debate. Revisionists argue that the unique polity of the Episcopal Church does not allow bishops to make the decisions that the DES asks them to make and, further, that the DES requests themselves reveal a deep misunderstanding of not only the American church, but the provincial autonomy at the heart of the Anglican Communion structure. But this proposal calls for a self-sacrificial voluntary removal for the sake of Christian charity rather than forced submission to what revisionists see as coercive demands. At the same time, for the orthodox, this voluntary removal provides the necessary space and distinction between false teaching and true, heresy and orthodoxy called for in the scriptures.

The whole entry is here.

Fr. Dan Martins reflects on how today’s lectionary, in particular Ps. 80, is leading him to pray this morning.

One of the marvels of Holy Scripture–particularly, I have found, as I encounter it in the Daily Office–is the ability of an entirely familiar passage to suddenly leap off the page in an astonishing way.

Psalm 80 is appointed for this morning. It is a plea to Yahweh on behalf of Israel, and the Psalmist compares the nation to a vine–planted and tended by God himself, a beautiful thing. Yet, the vine has fallen on hard times:

Why have you broken down its wall, *
so that all who pass by pluck off its grapes?
The wild boar of the forest has ravaged it, *
and the beasts of the field have grazed upon it.

In what I hope is a faithful allegorical interpretation in the patristic tradition, my heart substituted Anglicanism for Israel, and the whole thing instantly became crushingly poignant in these days when the very survival of the Communion seems to depend on what a group of bishops in gathered in New Orleans decides to do.

The rest of the entry, including his prayer, is here.

Check out the latest Lent & Beyond entries as well for more prayers and reflections.

A fantastic job by Greg rounding up all the important news and links of last week. Read it here.

Although Robinson occupies the center of the controversy, he did not use the sermon he gave at Grace Episcopal Church on Sunday to advocate for the rights of gay ministers. The sermon, rooted in the Gospel of Luke, nonetheless conveyed his view that the church should embrace outsiders who live “on the edges of acceptable society.”

If all scripture were lost save for one story, Robinson said, he would preserve the parable of the prodigal son: a young man who left home, squandered his inheritance and crawled back to his father in shame. His older brother lived a sober life and grew resentful when the father welcomed the wayward son home.

Robinson said the older brother did not understand that “the father’s love is big and expansive enough for everyone, for both the good and the bad sons.”

His sermon turned on two points: The church should offer a haven for sinners and outsiders who want to repent, and it should be a place where the faithful can come to renew and recharge their commitment to seeing justice done in the world.

“You and I are called to take a risk, trusting in God who loves us beyond all our imagination,” Robinson said.

Read it all.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh is convening a meeting next week called “Common Cause Partners” to unite Episcopal conservatives. But even conservatives doubt its viability.

On Monday, conservative Bishop Jeffrey N. Steenson of the Diocese of the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, N.M., plans to announce that he’s resigning and joining the Catholic Church.

“The movement is in danger of fragmenting into so many pieces,” said Canon Kendall Harmon, a leading conservative thinker from the Diocese of South Carolina. “We look like American Protestantism already and we’ve only been essentially at this, depending on whose measuring stick you want to use, three to five years.”

If Anglicanism continues on the path of slow but steady splintering, it will effectively do as much harm as a formal schism. Anglicans in Africa, who derive much of their stature from their global ties, will become just another church. The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church, which has played such a central role in U.S. history, will also be marginalized.

“If that happens, people will say, `This wasn’t much of a church anyway,'” said Ephraim Radner, an evangelical Anglican and a theology professor at Wycliffe College in Toronto. “The results will be the disappearance and dissolution of Anglicans as a whole in North America.”

Read it all.

Bishop Epting blogs about the questions he got at an adult forum at a small parish in Louisiana. Here’s an excerpt:

I presided at the Eucharist and preached at a small mission congregation in the Diocese of Louisiana this morning. Before the liturgy, I led an adult forum with about 15 folks around a table in the parish hall. After an overview of the House of Bishops meeting and a little bit on our ecumenical relations, I opened the floor for their questions.

Lots of concern about the “September 30 deadline” (which, of course, is not a deadline but as the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us “perception is reality” in real life). I spoke of my hopes that we will find a way forward, and then said something like:

“Two things I hope you’ll hold in tension: I want you to be concerned about these larger issues, about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and all the rest of it. But, bottom line, no matter what happens at this House of Bishops meeting, it doesn’t have to derail your local efforts. The cutting edge of our mission and ministry is the local congregation and you need to build a healthy and vital congregation!”

A 40-something big guy, with a red face and tears in his eyes said, “I disagree with you. What happens does affect our local congregation! I invite people but nobody in this part of the world wants to come to a church where, when you open the paper, is all about gay bishops and being thrown out of the world wide communion!”

I conceded that there are local consequences, but reminded him that I was only arguing for some balance in all this”¦that we shouldn’t be consumed by “the issues” but dedicate ourselves to mission. Then we went on to the predictable argument about “do we believe the Bible or not”¦why won’t the bishops defend the plain Scriptural truth”¦why is the Episcopal Church going against worldwide Christian opinion on these matters, etc., etc., etc.”

The full entry is here.

My understanding is that there were four, and in the public domain there is only one. Could the powers that be not release all of them into the public domain if possible?

The compromise being worked on over the weekend has seen the US moderate conservative bishops Charles Jenkins of Louisiana and Henry Parsley of Alabama working with liberals Jon Bruno of California and John Chane of Washington DC and Canons Kenneth Kearon and Gregory Cameron, of the Anglican communion council, on a formal statement that would keep the majority of US bishops together.

The resolution would also allow dioceses out of sympathy with the church’s leadership to seek their own Episcopal oversight and also for the setting up of a pastoral council with foreign representatives.

Read it all.

Update: Chip Webb has some commentary on this article here.

In his post at the Covenant blog tonight, Doug LeBlanc opines:

Moderate and liberal bishops may well ask what they have to gain by fasting from participation in the Lambeth Conference. That’s simple: They would gain the moral high ground, at least in proving their commitment to catholic order. Of course they may already believe they occupy that moral high ground. This is the bishops’ opportunity to demonstrate their moral principles to the broader Anglican Communion.

If all they can manage to say to the primates is “Our hands are tied” or “We’ve already met your requests,” they had just as soon spend the next two days on more of that much-needed and redemptive hurricane relief.

Here’s Doug’s whole piece.

Presiding Bishop’s sermon at Christ Church Cathedral, New Orleans
Jefferts Schori calls all to be ‘trumpeters of good news’

here’s an excerpt with her take on the Gospel reading (Luke 9:1-6) [Note: +KJS used alternate readings for the feast of Philander Chase, Sept. 22]

This morning’s gospel has Jesus sending his disciples out to move around, to bring hope and healing wherever they go. He charges them to drive out division and to heal. Proclaiming the kingdom of God is about reconciling the world; driving out demons is about removing all the forces that seek to divide ”“ and they’re both are essential kinds of healing. Those who are sent out get quite direct and simple instructions ”“ travel light ”“ and some other, more puzzling instructions, about entering and leaving houses and towns.

And here’s her conclusion:

So what does it take for us to travel light? Less than a lot of us think we need, especially as the signs of new life around here are the result of many people discovering they can live with less ”“ both by sharing their abundance or letting go of unimportant things. What does it take to travel light? More than nothing, to judge from the grief that is so widespread. If we ourselves are to be trumpeters of good news, banishers of disease and division, and proclaimers of the presence of God in our midst, we have to know something of home and community. We have to know that we belong to somebody else, that someone and some people care enough for us to work for our well-being, to help us sing lament, express our grief, and get in line. This parade is going to dance to the beat of good news, but it needs all of us in the line, not just those in this space this morning, but every other human being on this planet, black, white, brown; poor, destitute, and those with more than enough to share; grieving, ill, and those who know the blessing of restored health. This procession is going down to the grave, and it’s going to dance away on the other side, but only when we join the traveling throng. None of us is going home until all of us have a place to lay our heads, and music for our grieving hearts, and a feast for the belly and for the soul. When the saints go marching in, it’s going to be with every last one of us.

You can read it all here.

Chip Webb attended the service where +KJS preached, and has an interesting commentary on this sermon at his blog Anglican Action.

In an impassioned sermon at Edman Memorial Chapel in Wheaton today, Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria spoke against sexual sin, saying unity must come from obedience to God.

“Those who are working for the unity of God’s people lack one thing: the word of God,” Akinola said. “Whoever loves God will obey God.” “Fornication is fornication. Adultery is adultery. … These are the areas of primary evangelism.”

Akinola, who leads the largest church in the worldwide Anglican community, is the fiercest critic of the Episcopal church’s liberal stance on homosexuality. His controversial visit comes at a time when Episcopal bishops are meeting in New Orleans to respond to a demand they stop consecrating gay bishops.

Read it all.

From here: (link fixed)

This is a very emotional time for those of us in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, especially among us at St. Clement’s-El Paso who made up those “effective diocesan leaders” (a quote from Bp. Steenson’s Letter to the Diocese 9/07) who have now been lost to the Diocese and have departed TEC under an agreement negotiated with the Bishop and Standing Committee, which has received significant Internet attention.

Those who are not, or have not recently been, involved intimately with the life and work of the Diocese since the retirement of Bishop Terrence Kelshaw and the election of Bishop Jeffrey Steenson should refrain from the kind of speculation that “Roman” mentions in #13 (above)…let me clear the air.

The Diocese has not been “polarized” for the 10 years I have served elected position. The conservative/orthodox block of votes at Convocation has represented over 2/3 of any vote, and both Standing Committee and Diocesan Council have super majorities of conservatives.

St. Clement’s prepared and waited for a word from the Lord regarding our direction in the Anglican Communion.

Our Bishop, our friend and counselor Jeffrey Steenson, told us this was the time, and our prayers and discernment validated that call. The tear is never deeper, nor more painful, than when it is in tender flesh…and we felt that tear deeply in the tender flesh of this congregation and this Diocese when we voted 460-41 last Sunday to approve an agreement negotiated between us and the Diocese to leave with our property. We could not have succeeded in this without Bishop Steenson’s care and compassion. I am awed by his humility and dedication to Christ, and pray for his health and strength in the months to come!

The U.S. Episcopal Church is in the middle of a wrenching debate that could end with its departure from the worldwide Anglican Communion over disagreements about gay clergy and same-sex unions.

Episcopal bishops are expected to wrap up six days of meetings and ministry in New Orleans on Tuesday with an answer to a request by senior Anglican bishops who met in Tanzania earlier this year.

They have asked that the U.S. church by the end of this month renounce the blessing of same-sex marriages and agree not to allow more non-celibate gays to become bishops.

The stakes are high not least because the Episcopal Church, with 2.4 million members, provides 40 percent of the budget for the operating costs of the 77-million-member global Anglican Communion and a substantial amount of the funds for overseas mission and relief work.

“If the Episcopal Church is isolated from the broader community or chooses to isolate itself, the work of the global communion will suffer greatly,” said Jim Rosenthal, communications director for the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

From here:

On September 30 I celebrate my last day at Christ Church in Paradise Valley, AZ, a parish under Bishop Steenson’s good care. The parish will split and a good number of faithful people will be realigning on October 1 with another province in the Anglican Communion. After threats from the diocesan, the faithful decided not to fight for the property but to leave it and move on.

On October 1 I begin as priest in charge of Holy Faith parish in Santa Fe. I was so looking forward to serving under Bishop Steenson. My heart is broken–not just for him, but for the diocese he has led so faithfully and with such grace. I can’t say I am sorry to miss the clergy conference this week as I am packing to leave Arizona. The PB has nothing to say to me. Pray for the Church.

Received by e-mail, posted with the kind permission of Bishop John Howe of Central Florida.

To My Fellow Bishops:

We are deeply, tragically, horribly “stuck,” not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to “common discernment,” and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a “Gospel imperative.” But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock.

What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.

I propose that we:

1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.

2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen).

3) Those committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.

4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury’s terminology of “constituent” and “associate” membership for our dioceses. “Constituent” = fully Windsor-compliant. “Associate” = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.

5) Those congregations and clergy which are in “associate” dioceses, who wish to continue in “constituent” membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of “constituent” dioceses and Bishops – and vice-versa.

6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into “constituent” dioceses.

7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in “constituent” dioceses.

8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the “constituent” dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).

9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a “new consensus” has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination –

10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

From here:

This is not a question of “blind eye”, but of Christian realism.

First, we all know that Canterbury has no real stomach for “kicking out” people from the Communion. He has long said it himself, and he has made it clear in his actions. I think you are wrong in your interpretation (and that is all it is, because you and I together have no idea about his actual motivations and deliberations) that he actively “worked against” Dar. What he has, rather, tended to do is commit himself to a process of working with others that has permitted things like Windsor, Dromantine, the reconfigured ACC, the Covenant, and Dar to happen, and in themselves redefine matters as they go along. He has done so largely (and this I DO know) because he believes that the discernment of the larger church, through its councils, is likely more faithful than his own personal predilections, and he is committed to submitting himself to them, however difficult that is.

Second, within the church of Christ, we all are called to come into some kind of peace with those with whom live, so long as we can, in good conscience, maintain that peace. Paul tells us this over and over (Rom. 12:18; 2 Cor. 13:11, etc. etc.). This means enduring people’s weaknesses and often difficult character-traits (as long, again, as they are not outright destroying the Gospel), and helping, where possible, for them to grow in the Lord.

Given the above, in the present situation it is both Christian and realistic for those of us seeking the welfare of the Church of Christ and our Communion within it to work with the people we have as both our leaders and colleagues in order to move forward faithfully. I myself would have been happy if Williams had gotten up after Abp. Anis talk and said “Amen to that! He has spoken my mind exactly!”. But he didn’t, and we know that this is not either how he acts or even what he was probably thinking. Still, as Dr. Seitz has pointed out, he brought Abp. Anis with him, he knows him well, he knows what he would say (they surely consulted), and he encouraged the saying of it through his encouragement of this entire visit. I am not saying this is “good cop, bad cop” as some kind of strategy. It is, rather, the encouragement of the process he himself has supported to work itself out. Our calling in this is not to continually complain let alone accuse!””that Williams is not Anis. He is not. I am not you, nor you me. Our calling is, knowing these differences, to seek a way, through prayer and faithful engagement, to move forward our church in the purposes of God. How does one work with a Williams, an Anis, an Akinola, a Schori in this situation? It is possible to conclude simply that one “cannot”, and leave. But most of us have in fact not reached that conclusion, even if we fear it may come to that or are confused at how we might avoid it. Rather, we seek a way forward that is faithful. And in doing so, we take into account the Williamses and the Anises and the others, well aware that life would be easier if everyone were as we wished them to be (of course, that is a fallacy!), but also more aware that they simply will not be so, and these are the people God has bound us to.

Few of us on this blog are “blind” to the way Rowan Williams approaches matters. We are grateful for his gifts, often frustrated by some of his habits and dispositions, and””my hope””willing to move on with what God has given us in one another within this difficult situation.

UPDATE: ENS has a story online here.
September 21, 2007

To the Clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This is a very difficult letter to write as your bishop and colleague in the ordained ministry, and I hope that you will receive it in the prayerful spirit in which it is offered. A pastoral letter to the people of the diocese will follow in a few days. At the House of Bishops meeting about to be convened in New Orleans, my intention is to ask them for permission to begin the process to resign as diocesan bishop. The bishops must give their consent, and then I will step down by the end of the year.

The reason for this decision is that my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.

I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.

I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the pastoral support I have received from the Presiding Bishop and her office during this time. She has offered to visit, and I have invited her to be with us at the clergy conference the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 26, and perhaps also for that evening, for mutual conversation and the opportunity to know each other better in this time reserved for the clergy. I hope that you all can be present.

This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to make because of the bonds I share with you and the people of this diocese. It has indeed been a privilege to serve alongside you these past seven years. With deep feelings I write, with regret for how this may complicate your own ministry, with profound gratitude for your prayers and support, and with much love for you. I pledge to you my prayers and friendship in these days to come.

Your brother in Christ,

+Jeffrey Steenson

A very interesting interview.

At the news conference on Friday, Archbishop Williams said that other Anglican leaders who attended this week’s meetings would be “reading and digesting what the bishops have to say” and would share their opinions with him next week. He said he would also talk to primates and others in the coming weeks before giving his own opinion about what to do next.

After years of discussion, some Episcopal and Anglican leaders seem to have reconciled themselves to the fact that some kind of break within the Episcopal Church or the greater communion is inevitable. If several months ago a sizable number of bishops would have argued for the unity of the communion at almost any cost, far fewer would do so now, several bishops said.

Bishops also said that while the conversation this week was respectful, they felt disappointed it was so brief. And they said the archbishop and other Anglican leaders had failed to grasp and respect how the Episcopal Church was governed. Other provinces are much more hierarchical and bishops can legislate church policy, they said. Episcopal bishops assert that they cannot govern without the votes of clergy members and lay people, too.

One bishop who spoke on condition of anonymity said, “What was said to us was, ”˜All this talk of laity aside, if you acted like a real bishop, what would you do?’ ”

Read it all.