I am writing this afternoon from New Orleans where I am attending the House of Bishops’ Fall meeting. What hangs over us a bit like a cloud””and in fact we are expecting to be hit with a severe tropical storm tomorrow””are the decisions we must make after having met with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who departed this afternoon after spending about 8 hours in conversation with us.

I must confess disappointment at most of that dialogue. The Archbishop spent most of his time listening, and only about a half hour speaking to the concerns that were raised. He was asked some rather pointed questions including why he had not invited Bishop Gene Robinson to the 2008 Lambeth conference, and what was he going to do about those Primates who had invaded dioceses in this country. Archbishop Williams chose instead to talk mostly about the nature of the office of bishop, which he understands to be “a servant of common discernment, keeping the most people at the table as long as possible because truth can only be found in conversation with the greatest number of the faithful”. That may be true enough, but what about a bishop’s obligation to protect the forgotten and stand with the oppressed?

In broad terms he asked us to postpone our own church’s agenda in favor of peace in the larger Communion. That desire was more strongly expressed by four members of the Anglican Advisory Council who spoke to us this morning. They again urged us to consider affirming in some way what was asked of us by the Primates at their February meeting in Dar Es Salaam, namely to refrain from consecrating openly gay bishops and approving same sex blessings; offer alternative primatial oversight to dioceses who wish it; and allow our church to be monitored by a council made up of other Provinces. Most of us feel again the frustration of being caught in the conundrum of wanting to walk with our world-wide partners without turning our backs on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Many of us also believe we have already done all we can to appease those who differ with us in these matters. It seems we are being given a “Sophie’s choice,” being ask to pick who we love more. Whatever choice is made, people will be hurt. Even the option of refusing to choose can be interpreted by both parties as rejection.

Up to now we have had the chance to revisit the same old hurts and frustrations.
On Monday we will see what we can do to create some kind of a response.

In the meantime, we are going to (literally) put on our work gloves and spend tomorrow in the 9th Ward of the City. On Sunday we will worship at various parishes. Perhaps having a time-out to work and pray together will allow us, as the Archbishop asked, “to find a way to surprise the world.”

–(The Rt. Rev.) Kirk Smith is Bishop of Arizona

Cherie Wetzel has a wonderfully detailed report out this evening (her 5th dispatch) which contains quite a lot of detail about ++Rowan’s interaction with the HoB. We received it by e-mail. Eventually it will be online at Anglicans United. But since it’s not yet online, we post it here in full. I found the section about Abp. Aspinall particularly surprising.

HOB Report #5 Late Friday Afternoon, September 21, 2007

Good Evening. The meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury has ended. The Press was given good access to all the major players and the House of Bishops has moved on to the next segment of their agenda: the Millennium Development Goals (MGD’s). They are in session right now discussing diocesan participation in the MGD’s and how the money will be applied.

From all reports, this morning’s session was a surprisingly candid exchange of information between the members of the House, the Archbishop and the invited guests from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primate’s Council. The Rt. Rev. Dr. Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane Australia, spoke to the House, telling them that they must reassure the Communion that they will live into the resolutions passed at General Convention last year. He asked what the rest of the Communion was to think when they vote to refrain from authorizing same sex blessings and 14 bishops quietly (but publicly) authorize rites to be used in their diocese and give permission to their clergy to perform same sex marriages as a pastoral care issue. Aspinall asked, “What good is your vote? How do we trust you?”

The same point applies to B-033 when both Houses (Deputies and Bishops) voted, “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” Within 2 hours, 20 bishops said they would not comply with this vote and subsequently, 9 dioceses repudiated B-033 at their annual conventions.

With the inclusion of the known lesbian, Very Rev. Tracey Lind in the bishop’s race in Chicago, Dr. Aspinall’s question to the House is valid. And necessary.

I was told that the Archbishop became irritated when several bishops continued to complain about the African bishop’s border crossings, saying that they had violated the Windsor Report and were not chastised. They felt the criticism they received on the gay issue was unfair when other provinces were also in violation of the Report.

In his prepared statement for the Press, the Archbishop stated, “It has been a valuable opportunity to listen carefully to the thinking of the bishops here on the problems that face the Communion ”¦.I think that in the light of the conversations we have come to a better understanding of the House in response to the questions and proposals f the Dar es Salaam Primates’ Meeting. Hope that the House, equally, has understood more fully that those questions and proposals were meant to achieve. The House will continue to reflect on them over the weekend.”

One of the ACC members opined that the US Church, post Revolutionary War, when they applied to join the Communion, agreed to alter the words of the Nicene Creed to conform to norms and standards of the Communion. This prompted the question, “You sought and took our counsel before. Why are you
refusing to take our council now?”

Another ACC representative from Central Africa questioned why TEC went ahead with the confirmation of and consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop, New Hampshire, without consulting with the rest of the Communion. She said, “I had to live with what you did in America in my home town in Uganda. It was very difficult for me. If we are a Communion, we will act with regard to how our actions affect the others, not in spite of how our actions will affect others.” (These two
people requested they be quoted anonymously.)

I understand that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson addressed the Archbishop directly. I do not wish to misquote him and will attempt to get a statement from him today or tomorrow.

And so, the House will have a workday tomorrow. Most are assigned either to house demolition, or medical care or reconstruction from 9:30 to 2:30. Since that tropical storm has just been given a name and is expected to land here tomorrow, those plans may be changed. Many bishops and their wives are assigned to pastoral duty on Sunday. The Rt. Rev. James Adams, Western Kansas, will be at the Free Church of the Annunciation on Sunday for Confirmation, and baptism. (This church is out of their neighborhood and building and are using this name for now. They are an Episcopal parish.) Bishop Charles Jenkins was at Annunciation 2 months ago, but another group of people is ready to be confirmed, so Bp. Adams will don the cope and mitre and confirm, celebrate, preach and baptize. Busman’s Holiday!

I am going to end this piece with remarks Bishop Adams made to me after the meeting. Archbishop Aspinall was at his table and after the discussion yesterday, was encouraged to speak clearly to the whole house so ALL would understand why the Communiqué asked the questions they did.

Bishop Adams said, “If they don’t get it now, they weren’t paying attention. No one could have made it clearer. Our discussion yesterday included the term ”˜catholicity’ and the definition of that includes full inclusion. So the question remains if those who disagree with the rest of the House will be extended full
inclusion or merely tolerated ”“ or less than tolerated. Will there be a place in The Episcopal Church for me?”

I assured Bp. Adams, who is one of the really good, Godly men in this House, that all of you want to know the answer to that question, too. Will there be a place for those who disagree with the majority in this Church? Can the bishops and clergy dial back on the rhetoric and be truly ”˜inclusive?’ Or will they continue to drive the Biblically orthodox out the doors? This is the test of their integrity (and I don’t mean the gay lobby group.)

The House will be back in session on Monday and these issues will get full attention. The joint meeting of the Primate’s Council and the Anglican Consultative Council representatives, to discuss what they heard in their conversations at this meeting, will continue through the weekend.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is on his way to Armenia, and there was a passing reference to communicating with him on Tuesday, when the House releases their statement. The Archbishop did not know today if the Primates would meet and evaluate what our House produces next week. His statement, “They haven’t produced anything yet, so I can’t say.” With Lambeth only 9 months away, and so much riding on the invitation process, a decision on that issue will have to be made within the next 3 months.

We have waited many years for the meeting that just took place. We have prayed many hours for God to rescue and resurrect this Church, starting with ourselves, one person at a time. We have stayed so that we can continue to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ who is the same today as He was 2000 years ago. He is not “a way” but “The Way to the Father.” And that is not putting God into a little box; it is allowing God to BE GOD.

We must be prepared to stand on what we Know, Know, Know a while longer. Answers will come and the resolution of this situation is very near. Do not be overcome by fear, or doubt; they are not from God. Remember to pray. That is our weapon of choice. And be of good courage, because He has overcome the world and will overcome these present troubles, too.

More interviews and reports tomorrow from this meeting as they are available. I bid you peace and a great weekend.
Cherie Wetzel reporting from New Orleans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it all.

Concluding his visit with the House of Bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sought to diminish expectations and the implication that there are consequences for The Episcopal Church for failing to provide the assurances sought by the Anglican Communion’s primates last February.

Archbishop Williams spoke at a press conference Friday as he wrapped up a day and a half of private conversation in New Orleans with the House of Bishops and representatives from the joint steering committee of the primates and the Anglican Consultative Council,

“Despite what has been claimed, there is no ”˜ultimatum’ involved,” Archbishop Williams said, reciting from memory a written statement distributed to reporters. “The primates asked for a response by September 30 simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the house likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the bishops have to say, and will let me know their thoughts on it early next week. After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks.”

In response to a question about the significance of his brief visit, Archbishop Williams said it “probably would not make much difference on the whole,” adding that he came away greatly encouraged by the bishops’ determination to continue together in relationship. Archbishop Williams also said there was “room for maneuverability” in an acceptable response from the bishops.

“Unfortunately [the primates’ requests in the communiqué] have been seen as demands and intrusions” by many of the bishops, he noted.

Read it all.

Update: A brief Boston Globe article is here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s hopes of averting schism in the worldwide Anglican Church are foundering after he was accused of dehumanising gays by the openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson.

Dr Rowan Williams is holding two days of crisis talks in New Orleans in an eleventh-hour effort to persuade the bishops of the American branch of Anglicanism to reverse their pro-gay agenda.

But insiders said that a number of the liberal bishops were in no mood to capitulate, and any compromise that they might eventually accept was unlikely to placate conservatives who want them ousted.

Documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph suggest that they may agree an ambiguous form of words that will fall far short of the unequivocal reassurances demanded of them, leaving Anglicanism on the brink of collapse.

Read it all.

His thoughts for the future? He recited a Nigerian proverb: ‘What the night portends, the moon will indicate it.’ He said: ‘For the past 10 years, the communion has been speaking loud and clear that what Ecusa is doing is not right. Ecusa has sadly never listened to anyone. If they now choose to listen to Rowan Williams, Allelujah! We will celebrate! But they have never listened to anyone. Even the communique we issued in Dar es Salaam, after much pain, after much labour, they refused to honour. We will see if they will give up their agenda, the new religion they are creating. They can say one thing, but then in the churches they keep on doing the same thing.’

He said he had received an unofficial response to his and his bishops’ request that the Archbishop of Canterbury postpone the Lambeth Conference. ‘He has not written officially. But all the indications are that Rowan Williams has firmly anchored his hope in the Lambeth Conference. He seems to believe firmly that the Lambeth Conference is the solution.

‘We believe very differently. We have told him quite clearly that there is no point in coming together in a climate of fear and distrust when bishops cannot be in communion with each other. We felt we should first have healing and then rejoice together at Lambeth. Apparently, he thinks differently. We have done quite a lot to save the communion. But if it does not want us, we will stay away. We do not believe it is appropriate for us to come together with other bishops when we are in broken communion.’

So will there be a separate church? ‘I do not want to sound prophetic here or paint a gloomy picture. I do not think it will break up at this point since we are still walking and talking and praying. It is still hoped that somehow some day the good Lord will save his church from further fragmentation.’

Read it all.

Read it all.

Baby Blue has the goods. Must reading. Here’s an excerpt. Wow.

…My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very difficult truth from that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It not just about sexuality, but about your views of Christ, the Gospel and the authority of the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different church, others even think that you are a different religion.

I understand that it is difficult for you in your context to accept the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion. This is why you refused to accept Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10. You also ignored all the warnings of the Primates in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Your response to the Windsor Report is seen by the Primates as not clear. You cannot say you value being a member of the Anglican Communion while you ignore the interdependence of the member churches. The interdependence is what differentiates us from the other congregational churches. I would like to remind you and myself with the famous resolution 49 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 which declares “the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches that … are bound together not be a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.” With respect, I have to say that those who would prefer to speak of laws and procedures, constitutions and canons, committees and process: you are missing the point! It is our mutual loyalty and fellowship, submitting to one another in the common cause of Jesus Christ that makes us of one Church on faith and one Lord.

It is clear that your actions have resulted in one of the most difficult disputes in the Communion in our generation. You may see them as not core doctrinal issues. Many like me see the opposite but the thing that we cannot ignore is that these issues are divisive and have created a lot of undesired consequences and reactions. For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our Communion is torn. Our energies have been drained and our resources are lost; and it is difficult for both of us to continue like this.

My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences.

However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say that it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us are wise. We wholeheartedly agree with this, but staying around the table requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard position (Lambeth 1:10) of the rest of the Communion.

Full text here.

Mary says there is “more coming” and Matt+ is also blogging this for Stand Firm. Awesome.

Here’s the link for Matt’s post at Stand Firm: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6132/

Go to this page and then scroll down to bottom left for the video / audio section.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/89878_ENG_HTM.htm

Phillip Aspinall: It’s true. There is no power to expel, other than possibly the Anglican Consultative Council, and that’s a long and somewhat complicated process itself. No, the question here is not someone coming in with a big stick and a quick fix to sort it all out. What we’re dealing with is a family of committed people, struggling together to discern the truth and find the way forward. No-one is expecting a quick fix and once-and-for-all solution for all time from the meeting this week in the United States. Rather we hope that in conversation and prayer and mutual discernment, we might be able to see constructive next steps.

Stephen Crittenden: We’ve been told that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to ask the Episcopalian Bishops two questions in New Orleans. Presumably those two questions are likely to be Do you have any intention to stop consecrating gay bishops and Do you have any intention to stop blessing same sex unions?

Phillip Aspinall: Yes, I haven’t been advised by the Archbishop of Canterbury about two particular questions that he intends to ask, though clearly the meeting is in response to the requests made by the Primates in Dar-es-Salaam earlier this year, and certainly the Primates did seek clarification on those two matters you raise from the American House of Bishops, and conversations will go on about those two things. The first one, in relation to the moratorium on the consecration of active gays that was in the Windsor report and followed up by the Primates, there’s a fairly clear indication already been given by the General Convention last year. The General Convention resolved to call on bishops to exercise restraint by not consenting to the election of such people. Now what the Primates have asked is for the House of Bishops to indicate that that resolution is one that they take seriously and will stick by, and I think if that kind of assurance is given, then the substance of that request will be met.

Stephen Crittenden: But that could well be tested in the near future with this election in Chicago.

Phillip Aspinall: Yes I think we need to understand that there have been several Episcopal elections in the United States since the Windsor Report was published and since the Primates issued their requests. As I understand it, there have been gay candidates in several of those elections and none of those candidates have been elected. So in fact, a moratorium has been instigated at least to this point.

Read it all and note the earlier discussion on why B033 does not do what the Windsor Report asks.

You can watch it at Anglican TV or Stand Firm.
12:30 Central / 1:30 Eastern / 5:30 p.m. London etc.

For the first time at least since World War II, women and men who married in the late 1970s had a less than even chance of still being married 25 years later.

“We know that somewhere between 40 percent and 50 percent of marriages dissolve,” said Barbara Risman, executive officer of the Council on Contemporary Families, a research group. “Now, when people marry, everyone wonders, is this one of those marriages that will be around for awhile.”

But David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a marriage research and advocacy group, said he was struck that the percentage of people who celebrated their 15th anniversary had declined. “This seems to be saying more recent marriages are more fragile,” Mr. Blankenhorn said.

About 80 percent of first marriages that took place in the late 1950s lasted at least 15 years. Among people who married in the late 1980s for the first time, however, only 61 percent of the men and 57 percent of the women were married 15 years later.

Among currently married women, non-Hispanic whites were the only group in which a majority had marked their 15th anniversary.

The survey by the Census Bureau, in 2004, confirmed that most Americans eventually marry, but they are marrying later and are slightly more likely to marry more than once.

Read it all.

From Bishop Epting’s blog:

[CORRECTION: the elf sincerely apologizes for originally mis-attributing this to Bp. Pierre Whalon. The two bishops’ blog feeds are adjacent in my RSS feed and so even though the link was to Bp. Epting’s blog, I saw the name Whalon and wrote that without thinking.]

Quite a roller coaster of a day yesterday. Our first time, as Episcopal bishops, to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury to talk face-to-face about our ongoing issues in the Anglican Communion.

We began with a festive Eucharist in the hotel with a great sermon by our Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori and the lusty singing of hymns from “Holy, holy, holy” through “There’s a sweet, sweet Spirit in this place” (and, perhaps surprisingly, there is!) to “O Praise Ye the Lord!”

Then, we entered into table discussions and open plenaries sharing our Hopes and Concerns for this meeting. My hope was that we could find a way to assure the Communion that we will do what General Convention has asked us to do by exercising restraint in consenting to the election of bishops whose manner of life will produce additional strains on the Communion. My concern is, that nothing we do will be enough for some ”” in our own House and in the Communion.

The afternoon continued with a brief address by Archbishop Rowan Williams and two questions to wrestle with: how far can we go in accommodating the request of the Primates’ Communique and what kind of “shared episcopal leadership” (within our own House) would we find possible and helpful. Lots of pain and anguish from all sides in the open discussion which followed. But it was good for Rowan and the other Primates and visitors from across the Communion to see the kind of respectful and thoughtful conversation we can have together.

I learned nothing really new. No conversations we have not had before. But it was good for our overseas colleagues to engage with us. It would have been helpful for the Archbishop to have done this three years ago.

Full text is here.

Note these two statements carefully:

The Reverend Susan Russell has been named as the only gay member of the Episcopal Church delegation charged with defending recent church actions (the election of an openly gay bishop and the recognition of same-sex unions by the Episcopal Church)

Integrity was instrumental in winning two controversial votes at the church’s 2003 General Convention: consenting to the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion and formalizing the acceptance of liturgies blessing same-sex unions in the Episcopal Church.

Ummm”¦ Have we not been hearing over the last years and over the last two days from the TEC House of Bishops that they needn’t really enact any kind of moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions because General Convention had not really approved same-sex unions? Integrity of course recognizes the reality of what happened at GC03(hat tip: AM).

from here:

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

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

A highly controversial move by the Diocese of Sydney to allow lay presidency has been postponed until after next summer’s Lambeth Conference.

The Diocesan Synod, meeting this week, decided to defer further debate on the issue after the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, had been asked a committee of officials
to issue licences to senior lay people and deacons which would allow them to celebrate Holy Communion. If Sydney went ahead, it could cause a split with the rest
of the Anglican Communion who see the move as a lurch towards congregationalism.

Leading the prolay presidency vote is John Woodhouse, the principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney. He suggests that the diocese uses current church laws,
effectively by-passing the need for the diocese to apply for legal authority ””which would probably not be granted by the national church. The decision to delay the debate has
been welcomed by many church leaders. Some American liberals argue that if they are in danger of being excommunicated from the communion then, in the same manner, so
should Sydney if they chose to be irregular over an issue such as Holy Communion. Why should lay presidency be considered more irregular than the acceptance of
[non-celibate] gay priests, they question.

But another issue is that if Sydney vote for lay presidency they could damage vital links with other conservative dioceses who would otherwise serve as allies against the ordination of [non-celibate] gay bishops in the rest of the communion.

–This article appears in this week’s Church of England Newspaper, the September 21, 2007, edition, on page 5

This is very strange.

Resolution Offered by Windsor Bishops (+Jenkins Resolution)

[Stand Firm writes] This is a statement crafted during the last meeting of “Windsor Bishops,” and we’re told forms the basis of the resolution Bishop Jenkins is going to propose. However, we’ve also been told that he’s been “consulting” with bishops Bruno and Chane to make it more palatable to them. The document has been circulating among the bishops at the meeting here in New Orleans.

It’s all here.

Resolution offered by Bruce MacPherson, Russell Jacobus, Geralyn Wolf, and C. Franklin Brookhart

Read it here.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6119/

We’ve been trying to post this but technical problems are preventing the text from appearing here. So head on over to Stand Firm!

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori began the first plenary session with an announcement that eight bishops had accepted her invitation to serve as episcopal visitors. Other than the names, no further details were given and there was no follow-up discussion.

Some of the eight episcopal visitors who spoke with reporters for The Living Church were equally uncertain of the scope of the proposal or how it would be implemented. None of those surveyed by TLC said they knew the identities of the other seven ahead of time. To a person, they said their primary reason for accepting was a willingness to be helpful at what they considered a critical time.

“The Presiding Bishop is open to considering more episcopal visitor invitations,” said the Rev. Charles Robertson, Canon for the Presiding Bishop. Canon Robertson said the Presiding Bishop envisioned the episcopal visitor plan being potentially applied in a wide variety of circumstances for parishes and dioceses. He noted it would be possible to discuss the plan in greater detail, including a consultative contribution by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, after Archbishop Williams’ final session with the bishops Friday morning.

Read it all.

[Bishop Charles] Jenkins, the Louisiana bishop, said before the meeting that he sees middle-grounders “willing to make sacrifices. . . . I see something spiritually happening.” But the letter he released showed the complexities: “We reject as sinfully faulty those actions that would splinter this Communion,” it says, also calling for alternative leadership “satisfactory to those who plead for such oversight.”

It is unclear what an acceptable middle ground would look like. For some, halting the ordination of gay clergy and same-sex blessings would be enough. Others think the theological chasm is too wide .

This month, the Pittsburgh diocese outlined steps to leave the Episcopal Church if the U.S. bishops don’t adhere to the dictates outlined in February. Divisions of some sort are expected in Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Calif., and Quincy, Ill.

Northern Indiana Bishop Ed Little said he thinks the requests made in February are appropriate. He said he does not plan to leave the Episcopal Church but is looking for a compromise. But how to do that, he asked, for example, on the question of authorizing same-sex unions?

“Is there a middle ground, where we retain the clear teaching that we are not authorizing the liturgy, but some folks are cut some slack? I’m not sure how that is done,” he said this week.

The Very Rev. Martha Horne, who recently retired as dean of the Virginia Theological Seminary, the largest Episcopal seminary, said the search for compromise goes beyond the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok here’s the key section of this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop M. Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts said that he told Williams that gay rights issues should not depend on approval from the majority of the Anglican Communion, but urged Williams to recognize that gay rights supporters, such as Shaw, believe they are acting in a prophetic way.

“There are certain times in history when you simply have to act – the majority isn’t going to do it,” Shaw said in an interview. “Speaking truth isn’t just liberal thinking, but it’s something that has a deep place in biblical literature, in the life of Jesus and the prophets.”

Shaw said he also told Williams that it is difficult to seek consensus in the American church “when these American bishops are going to Africa and making promises and playing on the fears of the African church.”

Shaw was referring to the fact that Anglican leaders in Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda have consecrated American priests, including the Rev. William Murdoch of Massachusetts, as bishops to minister to the alienated conservative minority in the United States who no longer feel comfortable in the Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Communion has been facing the possibility of schism since 2003, when the Episcopal Church approved as the bishop of New Hampshire the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, who is openly gay and lives with his longtime partner. The approval, which conservatives said violated the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality, exacerbated long-developing tensions over the liberal direction of the Episcopal Church.

The bishops in attendance are so divided that they are not all staying in the same hotel. The official meeting hotel is the InterContinental, but Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, the leader of the wing of the church most upset by the Robinson consecration, is staying down the block at the Parc St. Charles with a handful of other conservatives.

Read it all.

Q: Some people feel there’s been too much time spent already. Conservatives, people aligning with churches in Africa say it’s taken too long and they are leaving. Others say the rest of the world is pushing the U.S. Church around and they are tired of that. How many people feel caught in the middle?

A: I don’t know how many people are feeling in the middle. I can tell you that I think we need to look at our codependent reactivity. Just because we’re tired doesn’t mean that we give up doing the right thing, or because somebody else is pressuring us that we stop doing the right thing. Nor do I think that necessarily we are compromised by taking a mature look at the situation that confronts us.

Q: Is it still possible to hold everything together?

A: It is absolutely still possible to hold everything together. I take great comfort in the high priestly prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ in Saint John’s Gospel — that we all may be one as he and the father are one. I think that it’s going to take a bit of creativity, out-of-the-box thinking, and the question is not how little can we do, or simply what can we not do because of our polity of the American church and the canons of the American church, but how much are we willing to do?

Read it all.

Q: What is your reaction to the consecration of some Americans as bishops of churches in Africa?

A: Well, the consecration of those bishops would be more helpful if they were going to work in those countries. It’s exceedingly unhelpful to have them consecrated to work here in the United States.

Q: Why is it unhelpful?

A: Because it generates confusion among the faithful, people who do not understand that the Episcopal Church consecrates its own bishops. We elect our own bishops, we do not appoint them, and they are elected and consecrated for work in a particular diocese by the members of that diocese.

Q: Is reconciliation possible?

A: Reconciliation is always possible. Christians live in that eternal hope of complete reconciliation. Signs of reconciliation within this church are, I think, abundant. When people really do sit down and have honest conversation with each other in a way that does not immediately leap to judgment, we begin to make some progress in understanding each other’s beliefs and circumstances.

Read it all.

Q: How important a moment is this for the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion?

A: Well, from the perspective of the Episcopal Church it’s a very important time in our life to be very clear about who we are, you know, where we’ve been, and where we’re going to be going as a collective church. For the larger Communion, I think it’s a time to really reclaim what I think is the great activity and work of the church globally, and that is to say we have far more important things to do than to fight over these issues of human sexuality that we cannot resolve at this time and be engaged in the mission of the church, given the situation that is very much a part of the definition of the Global South.

Q: The bishops are going to be asked again to respond to the communiqué that was issued in Tanzania. What is your sense about where the bishops are heading on that?

A: We received that communiqué with a great deal of respect, but the House of Bishops has already spoken, and the other thing that primates need to understand, and I think other people even in our own church need to understand, is that the bishops, really, we can create “mind of the house” resolutions. We cannot change the direction or, in fact, speak to that kind of question as a defining moment in the life of our journey as Episcopalians. That’s up to the Executive Council, and so both the House of Bishops and the Executive Council have made it very clear that the scheme offered by the primates in Dar es Salaam was a scheme that we could not incorporate or accept.

Q: Remind people how the Anglican Communion works. The rest of the world cannot tell the U.S. church what to do, can it? The U.S. church is autonomous.

A: I don’t think autonomy is the right word. We’re a collection of very, very different provinces that in a sense are self-governed but in fact are connected to each other by the office and position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We’re in communion with one another through our communion with the archbishop. And so even the discussions that have ranged for years about people not being in communion with the Episcopal Church — it’s really inaccurate. You are in communion with us unless the Archbishop of Canterbury says you are not. So I think the issue here in terms of where we are right now is that our church is very much a post-colonial church. It’s a bicameral legislative church, and a lot of folks don’t understand that in terms of the balance of powers, the check and balances systems that are retained within it.

Read it all.

Q: When you look at the overall scene, how key is the current moment for the future of the worldwide Anglican Communion?

A: It’s a very crucial time. The decision upcoming of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church will put the Episcopal Church really on record in its response to the Communion and the Windsor Report, though it’s already made its will very clear from the meeting of the House of Bishops last March and the meeting of the Executive Council in June. But nevertheless it will say very clearly to the world where the church stands in not turning back and continuing on the course that the Episcopal Church has in fact been on for many years. But just as importantly and in many ways much more significantly in terms of the positive movement of the church and the realignment is the Common Cause Council bishops’ meeting at the very end of September, an unprecedented bringing together of biblically faithful and orthodox Anglicans of a number of different jurisdictions going back to those who separated from the Episcopal Church with the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 1870s. There’s been a tendency in some groups to break free from the Episcopal Church and then in turn separate and splinter. This is a historic and unprecedented uniting, a reversal of that pattern of smaller and smaller groups, but rather bringing groups of a number of Global South jurisdictions as well as others to form a biblical, united, missionary Anglicanism here in the U.S.

Q: Is that what is happening? I’ve heard people call this the Anglican Union.

A: I think the participation of the Global South and others in the consecrations in Nairobi and in Uganda demonstrate that very clearly. My understanding is that primates representing probably 75 or 80 percent of the worshipping Anglicans in the world were represented by their archbishop at the consecrations in Nairobi. And, clearly, while there weren’t as many representatives present in Uganda, that same level of support was there.

Q: What message is that sending to the U.S. Episcopal Church and also to others watching the Anglican Communion?

A: I think there’s vibrancy in biblical Anglicanism that we see in so much of the Global South that is tremendously attractive. Our experience here in America is that this kind of passionate faith and unapologetic proclamation of Jesus Christ is magnetic for people. There are many who are drawn to it, and I think it’s sending a very positive message far and above any political message within the church. It sends a missionary message that we want to be about the positive proclamation of Jesus Christ.

Q: Others are still saying “we still can find some kind of common ground, we can still find a solution; people need to try to find paths toward unity.” Is that still possible, and is it still something to work toward?

A: I said at my consecration in Uganda that the only real unity is unity around the person of Jesus Christ. If what’s being sought is some kind of artificial, fabricated institutional unity to paper over foundational differences over who Jesus is and what he has done and what his work on the cross means for us, then I don’t think there’s any future in that. If we can come together around the person of Jesus and his unique and saving work on the cross, then all things are possible, but it has to be a true unity based on biblical faith and the uncompromising gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read it all.

Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

We have just finished the daytime activities of the first day of the House of Bishops meeting. There is an impressive turnout at this meeting, including in particular, a high number of retired bishops.

At a celebratory dinner last night for bishops and spouses, we had the opportunity to get reacquainted with each other.

Bishops from most of the dioceses and bishops of differing points of view are represented and different opinions have been heard. We are joined by member of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates Meeting. JSC is an elected body of representatives of both the ACC and the Primates Meeting representative of all orders of ministry including women and men, lay people, priests, bishops and archbishops from all regions of the Anglican Communion who meet annually to facilitate the business of the Anglican Communion. They were warmly welcomed as was the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Reverend Rowan Williams.
All of us celebrated Eucharist this morning which continued the high spirit of celebration from last night’s dinner and with an added sense of hopefulness when we sung: There’s a Sweet, Sweet Spirit in This Place.

In her homily, the Presiding Bishop spoke from 1 Timothy 4:12-16 “’Pay close attention to your teaching, and continue in these things if you would save yourselves and your hearers.’”
She said:
“Self-awareness is at the root of what we do when we gather, and it is vital to the ministry of oversight. And it is in regard to self-awareness that the gospel seems most apt. Those who are forgiven much, love much”¦
“I have been much aware in this season of the power of language, particularly judgmental language, to wound and remove hope for reconciliation. I have spoken to a variety of groups using the example of Don Imus, who pronounced a judgment on the Rutgers women’s basketball team earlier this year. It was the kind of judgment that said, ”˜you are not my equal, you are not worthy of the dignity I accord those who are like me.’
“Interestingly enough, the basketball players were able to respond with an invitation to conversation ”“ a response that did not involve immediate judgment, but said, ”˜we’d like to get to know you, to find out what prompts the position you hold.’ When you and I can meet our rhetorical opponents, or anyone we are wont to judge as ”˜other,’ with an invitation rather than a judgment, remarkable things can happen. When we are willing to be vulnerable enough to spend time, to turn about with, to hang out with another, which is what conversation actually means, we not only begin to have conversation, but conversion also first becomes possible”¦.”
“May we all pay attention to ourselves, bite our nimble tongues, and suspend judgment. Think how our conversation might be different if we began by recognizing the beloved before us. Like the monastics among us, may we bow when we meet the image of God in our midst. That very bowing might even lead us into a bit of subversion and overturning. May that physical act of setting our egos aside help us to recognize the fount of blessedness enfleshed all around us, and offer peace. May we be peace for all who gather here, and all who await the fruits of our conversation. May we all pay close attention to ourselves, and continue in these things if we would save ourselves and our hearers.

Following the Eucharist, how we then came together around the table says as much about the Episcopal Church as the words spoken in the day long meeting. We engaged in a three hour discussion in the presence of the archbishop where bishops shared their concerns and hopes for the Anglican Communion and our shared faithfulness to God’s mission. We had the opportunity to describe to the JSC and the archbishop where we are as a church and to describe the health and vitality and mission work we do mindful that there are deep theology divisions but committed to moving forward in common mission.
In the afternoon session, the archbishop offered us questions and framed them in a twenty minute talk which challenged us theologically and scripturally about what it is to be a bishop and how we go about doing common discernment in the Anglican Communion. We then had 40 minutes to discuss the questions in small groups and in a plenary session, where we responded to the archbishop’s observations and as in the morning session, comments were both frank and honest.

In addition to my emails, you may also check Episcopal Life online for other reporting on the meeting http://www.ecusa.anglican.org.

Yours in Christ,

–(The Rt. Tev.) Tom Shaw is Bishop of Massachusetts

I rejoice to say we talked for about twenty minutes on the phone in the last week. He was ready to cross over, and I rejoice that the trumpet sounds for him on the other side–KSH.

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/09/live-from-ecumenical-service-in-new.html

UPDATE: Mary’s blog entry includes 3 “quick capture” videos of Rowan Williams’ homily. MUST WATCHING!
[and no, he doesn’t address the TEC crisis, but this elf at least still found it *really* helpful to watch and listen to him and his reflections on what we owe one another, and what we owe Christ, and about the City of God. There’s a lot of metaphors there that tie into our life in the Anglican Communion at the moment.]