Here is the entry for yesterday.

On Tuesday, the American bishops, the majority of whom are liberals, are expected to vote to support a greater role for gays and lesbians in the Church, both with regard to the creation of new bishops and the blessing of same-sex relationships.

Unless they can be persuaded otherwise, it seems certain the move will irrevocably split the Church, ending the Anglican Communion and creating an alternative alliance between Africa and conservatives in the US.

Into this increasingly hot and humid atmosphere, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, arrived for a frenetic round of last-minute shuttle diplomacy in a series of private meetings.

As events progressed, Dr Williams showed his face only briefly. In the lobby of the InterContinental, the lift doors opened to reveal the leader of the Anglican Church, his eyes weary from jetlag and battle fatigue.

Asked how the meetings were progressing, the archbishop gave a Gallic shrug and an exasperated raise of the familiar bushy eyebrows before the blessed relief of the lift doors sliding shut again.

He is said to have cut no less awkward a figure in the private meetings, seemingly pained by the position that he finds himself in, trying to reconcile those who believe homosexuality is a sin with liberals who want a more inclusive Church.

Read it all. There are a couple of things which need to be said about this article. First, the document to which Jonathan Wynne-Jones refers is the one posted last Friday by Stand Firm, and so far as I am aware it has no approved status as of yet, and I honestly will be surprised if the House endorses it in some fashion (maybe they will). So it is not true-yet–that the US Bishops have rejected–or approved–anything. Second, and more importantly, we learn that the week before Dr. Williams went to New Orleans he had a private meeting with Archbishop Akinola. This does not sound like the action of an Archbishop who (a) is not trying as best he can to be faithful to the whole communion and (b) is not taking the concerns of the Global South seriously–KSH.

The head of the Anglican Communion offered words of encouragement yesterday to U.S. Episcopal bishops under fire for their support of gay men and lesbians, saying they aren’t facing an “ultimatum,” even as other leaders of the worldwide church insisted the Americans are teetering on being forced out of the communion.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made his comments at the end of his two-day visit with bishops of the Episcopal Church — the U.S. branch of the communion — who are meeting in New Orleans. The key topic at the conference was the request made this year by the heads of other branches of the communion that the U.S. church promise to halt the approval of gay bishops and the authorization of same-sex marriage rites.

A response was requested by Sept. 30. That has been viewed by many, particularly conservatives, as a major deadline in a years-long standoff in the Episcopal Church over what the Bible says about sexuality and how to view Jesus.

Read it all.

From the front page above the fold of yesterday’s New York Times:

When the Rev. Phil Kitchin steps into the pulpit of the Clarkston International Bible Church on Sunday mornings, he stands eye to eye with the changing face of America. In the pews before him, alongside white-haired Southern women in their Sunday best, sit immigrants from the Philippines and Togo, refugees from war-scarred Liberia, Ethiopia and Sudan, even a convert from Afghanistan.

“Jesus said heaven is a place for people of all nations,” Mr. Kitchin likes to say. “So if you don’t like Clarkston, you won’t like heaven.”

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once noted that 11 a.m. on Sunday was the beginning of the most segregated hour of the week in America, and for the better part of 120 years, that certainly applied to this church. From 1883 until a few years ago, anyone on the pulpit would have gazed out at a congregation that was exclusively white. The church is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, a group that in 1995 renounced its racist past.

But an influx of immigrants and refugees transformed this town in a little over a decade, and in the process sparked a battle within this church over its identity and its faithfulness to the Bible, one that led it to change not just its name but its mission.

The Clarkston International Bible Church, which sits along an active freight rail line down the road from the former Ku Klux Klan bastion of Stone Mountain, is now home to parishioners from more than 15 countries. The church also houses congregations of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Liberians and French West Africans who worship separately, according to their own traditions. The church’s Sunday potluck lunch features African stews and Asian vegetable dishes alongside hot dogs, sweet tea and homemade cherry pie.

The transformation of what was long known as the Clarkston Baptist Church speaks to a broader change among other American churches. Many evangelical Christians who have long believed in spreading their religion in faraway lands have found that immigrants offer an opportunity for church work within one’s own community. And many immigrants and refugees are drawn by the warm welcome they get from the parishioners, which can stand in stark contrast to the more competitive and alienating nature of workaday America.

Read it all.

[Saturday] morning Bishop Alexander, on a construction site rebuilding a house in central New Orleans, had this to say:

“The conversations have been frank but productive. I’m confident that we will emerge from this meeting having found a place that is acceptable to both the majority of the Anglican Communion and the majority of the Episcopal Church.”

Archbishop Rowan Williams came to a hurricane-damaged city hoping to spark frank dialogue about gay ordination issues that have divided the U.S.-based Episcopal Church from many of its Anglican brethren abroad.

He seems to have gotten just that, saying Friday that the 77 million-member Anglican Communion is “under the greatest possible strain at the moment.”

Episcopal bishops are meeting through Tuesday to draft a response to the worldwide communion’s call to stop consecrating gay and lesbian bishops — a conflict that has divided the worldwide body since the U.S. election of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

“Temperatures are very high at the moment,” Williams told reporters.

Read it all.

Concerns over the appointment [of Jeffrey John] raised by evangelicals in the diocese of Oxford, Williams said, were “theologically serious, intelligible and by no means based on narrow party allegiance or on prejudice” and must be considered fully.

–Archbishop Rowan Williams as cited by the Christian Century July 12, 2003

But the shortcomings of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer point up what I believe is American Anglicanism’s greatest weakness — its theological vapidity. I am not an Anglican because of the lovely worship or our sacramental life, or any of the various pieces of adiaphora that so many of us enjoy. I am first and foremost an Anglican because of its doctrinal and theological tradition.

I don’t know how many times I have heard it said outright or implied in my years here that theology doesn’t really matter or Anglicanism is not confessional. I’m sorry, that is just plain wrong: Anglicanism from the 16th Century onward has taken doctrine seriously and is has always had a strong confessional tone. Because so many have come to believe this flaccid approach to theology and the revealed truth, in recent years we have been reaping the whirlwind of the wind that for several generations has been being sown. I think this has been one of my greatest causes of grief.

What startled me when I first came here was that I was pilloried by some because of my theology, and then immediately judged not on the basis of what I believed but on my stance in relation to what was the issue du jour. In those days it was women’s ordination, which most of the time was approached not as the theological issue that it truly is, but as an issue of human right. Very early on I realized that not only did many leaders not really know the Scriptures very well, or be particularly interested in growing in their Scriptures, but they did not see that as a problem. Added to that was a very limited understanding of those generations of Christian shoulders on which we as people of this time stand.

It was when I started traveling around the church that I got to visit the seminaries that I started to discover how they functioned and what they perceived their role to be. Also, for a decade I happened to be officed in a seminaries so could see what happened there first hand. Gradually it dawned on me that my understanding of the nature of theological education was not what was going on in most of these places. There was little laying a firm foundation in Scripture, classic theology, philosophy, church history, and so forth, thereby equipping the next generation of ordained leaders for pastoral and missional ministry, but was more about propagandizing the student body into seeing life, ministry, and God in a particular culturally-conditioned kind of way.

In these seminary settings some students rebel, a few are capable of cutting their theological and intellectual teeth in a constructive manner, but significant numbers swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker, and in the process often seemed to lose their first rich passionate love of the Lord Jesus Christ. A significant element of this prevailing seminary process is that it is predicated upon a hermeneutic of suspicion when handling the Scriptures, coupled with a sense of disdain for the wisdom of those who have journeyed the Christian way before us, and the notion that we now know better. When coupled with the desperate shortcomings of the Commission on Ministry system in most dioceses it is not difficult to see why leaders cannot lead, and the faith is not growing and blossoming as it ought.

Today’s theological confusion is the end product of decades of such conditioning. Perhaps the classic example of our church’s theological vacuity was the statement that came out of the House of Bishops in March: a mishmash of inadequate theology coupled with such a spin being put on history that the facts could not sustain. It was a classic example of wanting things to go a particular way, and so tinkering with events, movements, and theology so that it was possible to justify what was desired by the majority.

Read it all.

Mark says:

Almost everything we see coming out is rehash of old positions. I think things are stuck and that some who believe their job is to rescue us all from stuck positions will put forward compromises that will be rejected. However, what is needed is not compromise, but promise – a new beginning for life together, where most of us can say, “Not farewell, but fare forward voyagers.”

I agree (it does not happen all that often). I keep thinking of that AA statement the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and to expect different results.

Any attempt to put out a mushy statement and then have people go home and do what they have done before will be a disaster. And that has been the pattern again and again.

A system that is stuck needs a breakthrough; a radical proposal that actually creates space, movement, and offers real hope for the future to all as well as calling for sacrifice from all. Pray with me for that.

My brother and I both came up to Lake George to surprise him for #75. It would be important anyway, but has special meaning since Mom died earlier this year in March–KSH.

If it comes to a split in the Anglican Communion, it is not the fault of the orthodox wing which wants to leave, but of the radical wing that couldn’t wait to make a ‘gay bishop’ and the blessing of gay relationships possible.

Such is the view of the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, expressed in an interview with the Dutch Evangelical daily newspaper, Nederlands Dagblad.

Williams himself does not regard homosexuality as an issue on which the Church should split. He says it is a subject ‘we must talk about’. ,,There are enough Christians of good faith in every denomination – Evangelical to Roman Catholic – to whom it is not quite so self-evident, who are not absolutely sure that we have always read the Bible right.”

But that discussion is being foreclosed by people with a ‘radical agenda’ who just can’t wait, says the Archbishop. The Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) three years ago ordained a Bishop who lived openly in a gay relationship. In doing so ,,it has made a decision that is not the decision of the wider body of Christ”, says Williams.

Read it all and read that also.

At least five “mind of the house” resolutions have been submitted for plenary discussion by the House of Bishops before their meeting concludes Sept. 25. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori had previously requested that all resolutions for consideration be submitted no later than Sept. 20, the meeting’s opening day.

Copies of the proposed resolutions, along with other reports and documents, have been made available near the entrance to the New Orleans conference room where the bishops are meeting. Some of the resolutions bear the signed endorsement of more than one bishop; however no formal discussion of resolutions is scheduled before Monday.

Read it all.

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

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

It’s the most famous pun in the history of the foreign office. In 1842, Major General Sir Charles Napier, commander of the British army in India, was ordered to quell an uprising in a province called Sindh, today the region around Karachi in Pakistan. He succeeded, and sent back a message consisting of one word, Peccavi, which is the Latin for ‘I have sinned.’

Puns aside, the hardest thing to say in any language is just that: I have sinned. I did wrong. Forgive me. Which is why, in Judaism, we have Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which begins this Friday night.

For us, it’s the holiest day of the year, and it is given over to saying in a hundred different ways, I have sinned.

It isn’t easy to do. But it’s essential to a happy life. I have seen marriages fail, families split apart, friends become estranged, whole communities divided, all because neither side was prepared to say: I got it wrong. Forgive me.

Read it all.

I am having one of those days where things line up in a pattern in an amazing way. This show tells a remarkable story of repentance, and it just happened to be what I listened to on Podcast during my run this morning:

Sam Slaven is an Iraq War veteran who came home from the War plagued by feelings of hate and anger toward Muslims. TAL producer Lisa Pollak tells the story of the unusual action Sam took to change himself, and the Muslim students who helped him do it

It is also an incredibly powerful reminder of some of the real cost involved in the Iraq War.

Listen to it all (34 minutes and very worth the time).

with Christ in the vessel we can smile at the storm
smile at the storm
smile at the storm
with Christ in the vessel we can smile at the storm as we go sailing home
sailing sailing home
sailing sailing home
with Christ in the vessel we can smile at the storm as we go sailing home

The Rev. Steven McClaskey really didn’t want to retire right now from his pastoral post at Trinity Church in Rock Island.

Yet, he also didn’t want to risk losing his pension, which advisers and he felt was endangered, by the continued dispute between Episcopal Church leaders and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The two sides have been at odds since the 2003 consecration of the Rev. Gene Robinson, a non-celibate homosexual, as a New Hampshire bishop. The crisis escalated in 2006 when Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was named as the church’s presiding bishop.

Anglican archbishops issued a Sept. 30 deadline for Episcopal Church leaders to give “unequivocal assurances” that they will stop advocating teaching and practices “incompatible with Holy Scripture;” and would not consent any longer to consecrating bishops living in a same-sex relationship or blessing same-sex unions.

The Episcopal House of Bishops gathered Thursday and continue to meet this weekend in New Orleans to discuss the dissension, including a face-to-face meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

For me, the significance and urgency of these next few days and weeks is in part because of the clear and specific, time-limited requests to TEC from the Primates and their warning that “if the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”. With Lambeth now less than a year away if there are indeed to be ‘consequences for…full participation’ it is clear the Primates will either have to eat their words or action will have to be taken by the Instruments sooner rather than later.

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

The next stage of the never-ending Anglican schism comes this week when the Archbishop of Canterbury and other key Anglican leaders fly out to New Orleans to meet with the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops.

Some might say that this is the crucial stage in the crisis given that the Primates at Dar es Salaam named September 30 as the deadline for The Episcopal Church to comply with the Windsor demands for repentance, a moratorium on same-sex blessings and ordinations, and alternative pastoral care for ”˜conservatives’ who are estranged from their diocesan bishops.

I have my doubts about how crucial this will be, given that the deadline seems to be meaningless. There is no scheduled meeting of any kind in the Anglican Communion to assess whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) has complied. Furthermore, it seems likely that the House of Bishops will attempt to convince the Archbishop’s party that it has indeed complied as far as it can but only a full General Convention can make the necessary response. The fact that there has already been a General Convention meeting last year which could barely even agree on what the Primates and Windsor meant in their demands, will be neither here nor there.

It seems clear that TEC, aided and abetted by the London-based Anglican bureaucracy is playing a long, tactical game. If the process, and the Anglican Communion, can just limp along from hurdle to hurdle without an overt split then the opposition will just melt and die.

The Episcopal Church will continue to downplay the crisis, no matter that scores of parishes are leaving, that dioceses are on the verge of breaking links with the whole edifice, and that African Primates are consecrating bishops and creating parallel jurisdictions in the US. It is business as usual, to the extent that the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, even had the brazen cheek to stand for the Primates Standing Committee during their meeting in Tanzania, and got elected. She thus ignored the fact that TEC’s very status in the Communion is, at the very least, a secondary one according to the Windsor Process, until the demands are complied with.

I’ve heard more than one Primate during the past decade express frustration about their dealings with The Episcopal Church. They feel deceived after years in which the leaders of TEC refused to discuss the changes they were making in the whole area of human sexuality. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold would do anything to avoid conflict and assured the Primates that nothing had changed and the rapid technology of the internet was distorting what was really happening.

In reality, the technology of the internet ensured that all those who had an interest could see what was really happening in the Episcopal Church. And, let’s be absolutely
clear, it’s about much more than sexuality. Bishop Harold Miller put it very well in an article in the Church of Ireland Gazette earlier this month: “In so many ways, parts of the Episcopal Church have been losing deep aspects of their identity. If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalised or even rejected, where do we go from here? “The faith remaining will be a very different
faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints ”” and I, for one, am not going there!” he concluded.

He, like me, has seen incredible divergences between the faith widely held in The Episcopal Church and the faith of Anglicans elsewhere. For my part, I believe it is the baptismal liturgy of the 1979 Prayer Book that is the crux to understanding the direction of The Episcopal Church. In Anglicanism what you pray is what you believe, which is why Cranmer’s Prayer Book is the nearest we have to a unique foundational statement of theology. The US liturgy has much less of an emphasis on sin, repentance, deliverance and transformation than liturgies elsewhere. Wherever you go in The Episcopal Church you now hear the appeal to the Baptismal Covenant.

This is the real covenant Episcopalians are saying, and the foundational nature of baptism is emphasised to the point where it is held that all the baptised are equally entitled
to all the sacraments of the Church -including ordination. This kind of theology makes no demands of its adherents. The baptised are all equal members of the same club. No confirmation, or preparation, is necessary for admittance to communion, and there are increasingly fewer barriers to ordination. Thus there are huge numbers of divorced and remarried priests, and as many homosexuals in partnerships. This kind of theology in which sin, repentance, atonement is unfashionable has little need for Jesus and the Cross, which is why in the past I’ve described it as verging on unitarianism.

Any settlement of this Anglican crisis needs to face up to this divergence in theology. But it should be a compassionate and unity-building settlement. Demands for The Episcopal Church to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion are ultimately uncaring and uncalled for. The need is for the re-evangelisation of The Episcopal Church and this can hardly be accomplished by outright schism.

–This article appeared in the September 21, 2007 edition of the Church of England Newspaper, page 14

With permission–KSH.

When all the bishops
Have rebuilt New Orleans
Painted, dry-walled, hammered nails
Together
I wonder whether they will gather
On Monday
And immediately see
They are as broken as New Orleans
We are as broken
As New Orleans
Even with the money poured in
And poured out

I wonder whether plaster dust
Will make a difference
In the complexion
Of the gathering
On Monday
Or will they all be showered
And mostly shaved
Present themselves whole and healthy
Proud of what they accomplished
Together
(the ones who stayed)
Proud of what they accomplished
Apart
(the ones who left)
Proud and whole
And never broken
Two parts
Never broken

Catharine Phillips
September 21, 2007

It is very interesting to see Ephraim’s comment this morning as I came across it after I wrote the entry below which came from some praying and thinking and bandying about ideas with some friends last might–KSH.

I cannot say with much certainty what Abp. Williams “really” wants in the midst of this mess. Perhaps he himself doesn’t really know. But one thing I am certain of: if the American bishops of all stripes””and their dioceses and clergy””could agree to some response to this situation that would get the larger Communion out from under this fight, he would think this the proper and acceptable course. EVEN IF IT MEANT THAT A LARGE PORTION OF TEC DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE COMMUNION. He would not be happy with this, but he would find it acceptable, because it would be a way of dealing with a conflict that engaged the mature agreement of responsible Christian leaders, however difficult and costly. The current way of dealing with it””spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag””has proven not only costly, but scandalous.

My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direction), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrpahical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.

This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted””and I still believe it can and should be””and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.

As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.

By request making this sticky. Look below for new blog entries. Also please note: Kendall has posted two updates to the original blog entry. See the end of the post.
I believe very strongly that one of the many tragic aspects of this whole Episcopal Church debacle in the last five years is that not only was the decision in 2003 wrong (and the way it was made wrong) but that nearly every major decision made by the TEC leadership since then has made it worse. The hard part about this is that when you keep failing to offer a sufficiently radical solution to a problem, the next time you face it it requires an even more radical solution.

I certainly wish to salute what the Presiding Bishop said in New Orleans: none of us is without blame in this mess. I have been trying to insist on this since General Convention 2003 and then my first address at Plano one: ALL of us are under judgment.

Perhaps, like me, you are wondering about Archbishop Rowan Williams’ calling for ‘room to maneuver’ and if there is any way forward now which is in the direction of a real, serious solution.

For myself, I will consider those in New Orleans serious when they consider offering the Anglican Communion something like this statement:

We realize we have caused huge damage to the whole Anglican Communion and therefore, we, as a body, voluntarily withdraw from coming to Lambeth 2008.

Now please note this means ALL the TEC Bishops. No exceptions. It would allow Dr. Williams to get nearly all (perhaps actually all?) the rest of the Communion to Lambeth, and it would show a sense of corporate responsibility for the wrong.

Yes, I know it is not perfect. I also know that it would only be PART of a solution and that there are many other questions which would have to be addressed. I also know it would only happen by divine intervention.

But only things LIKE THIS will really get us anywhere given the degree of damage, alienation, confusion and struggle.

I am praying for something along these lines because it will be a real tragedy if the third largest Christian family in the world falls into further disarray.

I see a lot of despair, anger, frustation and bewilderment out there. What I would like to see more of is constructive proposals for actually moving us forward. If you do not like my idea, then what is yours? Please make sure to propose something sufficiently radical which also might be achievable given the constraints. It is not easy, but it is important–KSH.

Update: FatherJake has taken the time to respond and Christopher Wells has some thoughts as well.

Another update: Marshall Scott had a lot of thoughts about this earlier of which (apologies, Marshall) I was unaware.

Update 3 [this one by the elves]: More discussion of Kendall’s proposal:
Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm
Giles Goddard at Inclusive Church
Jody Howard at Quo Vadis
Fr. Greg Jones at Anglican Centrist

Still, there were moments of ….[tension?] Bishop Mouneer Anis told the bishops that their decision to consecrate Robinson created “one of the most difficult disputes in the communion in our generation” and that some “think you are a different religion.”

“If you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then you have to walk alongside the members of your family,” Anis said, according to a text of his remarks that was circulated.

Yet no one expects Episcopal leaders to completely reverse course. Theological conservatives are a minority in the denomination and some wish to stay in the church.

Williams will work with Anglican leaders and with members of the Anglican Consultative Council, an international lay-clergy panel, in evaluating whatever statement Episcopal bishops make before they end their gathering Tuesday.

Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, head of a network of conservative Episcopal dioceses and parishes that are considering splitting from the Episcopal Church, said that Williams is “de-emphasizing the ultimatum piece to try to get the best results” from American leaders.

“A great number of the primates see that deadline very much as a real deadline,” Duncan said, “just as many of us had.”

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said yesterday that the breakup of the Anglican Communion would mark an unacceptable “failure” and that he believes compromise is possible between opposing factions over gay rights.

After a tense morning of meetings at which an Egyptian bishop said some Anglicans now view the Episcopal Church as “a different religion,” Williams acknowledged “temperatures are very high” in the 77-million member global Anglican Communion. But he sought to tamp down talk of an imminent schism, saying that “despite what has been claimed, there is no ultimatum” facing the Episcopal Church, even though a group of Anglican leaders has asked that the American bishops promise to put a halt to some of their support for gay rights by Sept. 30.

“I think it would be rather an admission of defeat if we said that we were incapable of working together on the issues that divide us,” Williams said at a briefing. “Whether we’ll get to that point, I don’t know. I have to say, ‘God forbid,’ and mean it.”

Conservatives in the Episcopal Church, and elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, have been furious with the Episcopal bishops over their decision in 2003 to approve an openly gay priest, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire, a move that they say violates the Bible. Summarizing the mood, a Ghanaian laywoman yesterday told the bishops that in her country, homosexuality is viewed as “an abomination.”

But Williams yesterday urged unhappy conservative Episcopalians to try to stay in the church; he told a blogger from a Virginia parish that has affiliated with the Anglican Church of Nigeria: “I’d be rather slower than I think some of your friends have been to look for solutions elsewhere.”

Read it all.

Fresh from a day and a half of closed-door talks in New Orleans with American and overseas Anglican bishops, the archbishop of Canterbury on Friday downplayed the risk that the Episcopal church faces imminent expulsion from the Anglican Communion over its inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians.

But the depth of overseas Anglicans’ displeasure was evident in remarks by a Middle Eastern bishop, who told the Americans that “some (Anglicans) say you are a different church; others even think that you are a different religion.”

Archbishop Rowan Williams said talks with U.S. bishops had helped him understand their theological reasons for wishing to sanctify faithful homosexual behavior. But closed-door exchanges between the liberal Americans and a delegation representing some conservative Anglican provinces overseas were often “uncomfortably hard,” he said.

Read it all.

A deadline of Sept. 30 for compliance with the worldwide church was set earlier this year, when the Anglican Church called for the 2.4 million member Episcopal Church to renounce the blessing of same-sex marriages and agree to no longer allow non-celibate homosexuals to become bishops.

A majority of American bishops are not inclined to agree with the worldwide body, and the tension threatens to split a relationship between Episcopalians and Anglicans, and has already divided Episcopalians in the United States.

Citing the Rutgers’ women as examples of how to lessen tension, “was an appropriate comparison,” said Rev. Greg Bezilla, the Episcopal chaplain at Rutgers. He likened comments Imus made about African-American women at Rutgers to comments often made about homosexuals.

“For so many people who are gay or lesbian, they are used to being disregarded, and insulted,” said Bezilla.

Bezilla does not anticipate the Episcopal Church will yield to the Anglican demands. “My expectations are that the bishops will not accept any proposal that would infringe on their own autonomy and authority as national church,” he said.

“The truth of the gospel is that Jesus proclaimed acceptance for all, and that he broke down barriers wherever he found them,” said Rev. Karin R. Mitchell, the rector of the St. David’s Episcopal Church in Cranbury.

Read it all.

At the set time which I appoint I will judge with equity. When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars….

For not from the east or from the west and not from the wilderness comes lifting up; but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another.

–Psalm 75: 2-3; 6-7

We’ve now added TWO updates at the end. Please check them out.

Trying to scan the blogs tonight and there is just WAY too much information and commentary out there to begin to try and post a lot of separate entries, or even many excerpts or highlights. What follows is an attempt to capture some of what caught our eye around the blogosphere tonight.

We’ll start tonight on the reappraising side of the aisle since we assume many of our readers are less up-to-date with reading the commentary from that perspective.

=========

Jim Naughton’s Day 2 roundup is here at Episcopal Cafe.

Here’s the section that jumped out at us from his report:

One bishop we spoke with said a member of the Joint Standing Committee had offered a private apology for Archbishop Anis’ remarks.

All three of the people we spoke with said the mood of the bishops after the morning session was glum because most of the speakers seemed to be pushing them toward an either or choice between conscience and unity.

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

Integrity has a very short blog entry entitled HoB Update: “Pastor Rowan” speaks, focused on a question asked of the ABC at today’s press conference:

[John Gibson writes:] I asked +Rowan what word of hope he had for the gay and lesbian baptized. He repeated assurances of the communion’s stated opposition to discrimination against gay and lesbian persons. I followed up and asked whether that opposition to discrimination applied to the world outside the church but not within the church.

He answered it was a matter of how people perceived a person’s “choice of a style of life” and how that affected what level of role that person was “eligible for” within the church. (”˜Choice’ of a ”˜lifestyle.’ Flashback to the 70s.) He also said we’re concerned with the appropriate limits of pastoral response to gay and lesbian people.

==========

Scott Gunn at Inclusive Church focuses his latest blog entry on +Marc Andrus’ statement from yesterday [which Kendall’s posted below]. After posting +Andrus’ statement, Gunn shares his personal opinion:

All that is true. However, we cannot expect to talk about justice and experience and think that we will nurture conversion among the wider Communion. We Americans had better start talking about biblical and traditional grounds for our innovation.

Obviously, writing for a blog called by the name “InclusiveChurch” and affiliated with IC in the UK, I favor the full inclusion of GLBT Christians in all aspects of the life and ministry of the church. However, I support this “new thing” because I believe this change — and it is a departure from the historic practice of the church — is warranted. I believe this change is warranted on scriptural grounds, and I believe it is warranted on grounds of tradition. And, finally, my experience tells me that it’s the right thing to do.

This elf appreciates Scott’s honesty here, and wishes all would be similarly clear about their positions. But we can’t help thinking there’s a contradiction or oxymoron in what Scott writes. In one sentence he admits that the GLBT agenda is a “departure from historic practice,” yet in the next believes it can be supported by tradition? Is there such a thing as “traditional innovation?” (our word, not his, but that seems to be what Gunn is trying to claim is possible.)

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

Susan Russell loudly (with 4 exclamation points) cheers on Gene Robinson. Susan writes:

It is time to name it as unconscionable for a people of God committed to seeking and serving Christ in all persons and repecting the dignity of every human being to continue to perpetuate a defacto sacramental apartheid precluding the full inclusion of the gay and lesbian baptized in the Body of Christ.

And it is time to recognize the clear truth that there is no compromise short of our explusion which will satisfy the Tribal Council convening to vote us off the Anglican Island.

Those are my two cents.

Those who are praying for clarity are certainly getting it in spades tonight from Susan!

Susan’s following post is also of interest. She watched the Anglican TV live feed of the press conference (and offers her thanks to Kevin) and notes what she thinks to be the takeaway quote:

That said, the “take away” quote of the day award goes to Archbishop Williams for “There is no ultimatum involved.”

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

Susan R. is clearly not alone in thinking the “no ultimatum” quote is the takeaway quote of the day. We’ve seen it all around the web on both sides of the aisle. Notably, both Fr. Jake and Simon Sarmiento highlight that quote in their blog headlines:

Jake: Canterbury: “No Ultimatum”

Simon at Thinking Anglicans: Archbishop Williams says “no ultimatum”

=========

We could have missed something (and please comment if we did!), but we didn’t see many blog entries on the reappraising side of the aisle that dealt in much depth with the plethora of proposed resolutions that were posted today by Stand Firm (though Thinking Anglicans did cover these. Thanks Simon.) Nor did we see much commentary on Archbishop Mouneer Anis’ remarks. Yes, Jim Naughton commented about Apb. Mouneer’s remarks (seeking to discredit them, it seemed). But for example in NINE posts so far today at Thinking Anglicans, not one mention of Mouneer? That seems hard to believe, so maybe we really did miss something.

Similarly we saw nothing on +Mouneer at Jake’s or Integrity’s blog or Susan Russell’s Hello? Anyone listening? Maybe we’re being rude and impertinent to ask this, but, what’s the point of inviting the Primates to come and speak to you if you’re going to ignore what they say? Just wondering.

There’s lots on +Gene Robinson. And +Marc Andrus, and now +Kirk Smith and their statements. But nothing on +Mouneer or Apb. Aspinall of Australia. It really seems like many in TEC only want to listen to themselves.

And yes, this is elfgirl writing her own opinion (Hope that’s ok Kendall). I’m not speaking for Kendall. But this stuff needs to be pointed out in my opinion.

-elfgirl

—
(Note: please forgive my lack of using titles (“the Rev’d” etc.). I’m working quickly trying to get this done before I need to call it a night. No disrespect intended. Short and simple is just easier at the moment, especially since I don’t necessarily know the exact status (clergy, lay) or titles of all these bloggers.)

—————————————
UPDATE / CORRECTION:

Although his focus is on ++Rowan, Fr. Jake actually quotes parts of Jim Naughton’s post from “The Lead” — so there is a mention of the fact that +Mouneer spoke and that the bishops didn’t like it. Here’s Jake’s excerpt of Jim (ellipses are in the post at Jake’s exactly as they are posted here, I’ve cut nothing):

…(Presiding Bishop) Anis was the most confrontational. The bishops we spoke with were depressed by his presentation because it contrasted so sharply with the flexibility expressed in private conversation by other members of the delegation…

…One bishop we spoke with said a member of the Joint Standing Committee had offered a private apology for Archbishop Anis’ remarks.

Right. So +Anis was confrontational. But what did he say??? The reappraising bloggers aren’t telling us or their regular readers.

==========

UPDATE 2: Ok, it gets even more interesting. The reappraising bloggers are one thing. After all, most blogs aren’t meant to be comprehensive news sources. Bloggers cover what interests them, what they have something to say about. So maybe they choose to ignore +Mouneer. I can live with that. But ENS?

ENS has 4 stories posted under today’s date, Sept. 21.

Archbishop of Canterbury ‘encouraged’ by bishops’ meetings By Pat McCaughan, Sep 21, 2007

Raise prophetic voices against poverty, Paul Farmer tells bishops By Mary Frances Schjonberg, Sep 21, 2007

Archbishop Rowan Williams’ opening remarks at September 21 news conference Sep 21, 2007

Archbishop of Canterbury gets a taste of New Orleans By Mary Frances Schjonberg, Sep 21, 2007

Anyone want to guess how many times the names Mouneer Anis or even Australian Primate Aspinall appear in these 4 articles? If you guessed ZERO, you get the gold ring! Nope. Not one mention of either Primate. No mention of +Morgan who supports TEC’s agenda. No mention of any of the Joint Standing Committee or their remarks that I can find at ENS today.

And yet, we have an 800+ word feature on some medical anthropologist and his remarks. Simply unbelievable.

For those of you like this poor elf who missed Anglican TV’s live stream of today’s press conference with Rowan Williams, despair not. Baby Blue has come to the rescue. Here’s the link: http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/press-conference-with-archbishop-of.html

http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/9/21/Bloggers-Round-Table

As of 9 p.m. Central, still no roundtable. Kevin’s having trouble rounding everybody up… stay tuned. We’ll post info as we get it, but it’s looking doubtful that this will be tonight.