Another perspective on today’s developments.

Watching the press conference today it was clear that the organizers of Lambeth think that they can solve the Communion’s problems by creating yet another of their Little Englands (despite the fact they’ve been warned that the Colonial Days Are Over) – an England where everyone is polite, every one remembers their manners, everyone remembers what Nanny taught them in the Nursery, everyone remembers their station and the rules and are gentlemen and ladies and quite accommodating to English sensibilities, and everyone remembers the British are in charge. After all, what is the sense of being Anglican if one doesn’t want to emulate the English! All will be well, all will be solved, let us create a safe space, a Little England and shut out all that dreadful unpleasantness that causes the Locals to riot.

It’s almost endearing. Almost. The problem is – we Americans are revolutionaries. We can’t help it. It’s in our blood – we were never disappointed by despots storming the Bastille and chopping heads off aristocrats and their flunkies. We manage to retain elements of our English forebears who reminded us that manners are helpful and order is necessary, but that is more to be tolerated than embraced. We put cowboys in the Oval. We do stuff and ask questions later.

Watching the Press Conference today was like watching the Old Guard trying to contain a revolution. But revolutions are like tornadoes – and this is an ecclesiastical tornado. Tornadoes are neither contained nor controlled. You learn to watch for them, to learn the signs of their approach – and when they come, you either you find shelter quickly or you run fast.

Read it all.

Listen to it all.

Here is the full text it needs to be studied carefully.

Read it all.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Sunday for most of us was a lovely day of worship at Canterbury Cathedral, at which the Dean preached, and Archbishop Rowan celebrated. That was followed by a superb barbecue on the lawn (lamb, chicken, sausage; actually, the best meal in our time here!) In the afternoon there was a Civic Reception in the ruins of the Abbey that was build by St. Augustine (he didn’t lay the stones, himself, but he oversaw its construction) in the early years of the seventh century. The Dean told us in his sermon that some of the pages of the Bible given to Augustine by Gregory the Great in 597 are still intact! I would love to have seen them, but I believe they are in the archives at Cambridge University.

Today’s Indaba subject was “The Bishop, Christian Witness, and Other Faiths.” During the session a DRAFT of the Statement to be issued at the end of the Conference was handed out. Though we still have a week to go, it gives us a much better sense of how it is envisioned that everything will “fit” together.

Perhaps a comparison with Lambeth 1998 would be helpful. Ten years ago we were given a reading list, along with scholarly papers prepared for us to study before coming to the Conference. Most of the Bishops were then divided into four main sub-sections, where we worked on Reports on broad major subjects. The only thing from that Conference that is much remembered is “Resolution 1:10,” which declared homosexuality to be “incompatible with holy scripture.” It was, and ever has been, the most controversial thing to come out of any Lambeth Conference.

But, interestingly enough, the REPORT from the sub-section on Human Sexuality, composed by Bishops from across the entire spectrum of opinion, and from every sector of the globe, was UNANIMOUSLY agreed to by all the members of the sub-section that worked on it. It outlined four major positions that faithful Christians take (or took, as of that moment) regarding their understanding of sexuality, and it was very carefully balanced and nuanced.
Archbishop George Carey invested a great deal of personal effort to keep sexuality from being the defining issue of the Conference (“If it becomes that,” he said, “we will have failed.”) We failed.

The “Global South” largely felt that the “Progressive West” was demanding a new understanding of sexuality, and it struck back with a vengeance. The Resolution was amended and amended, each time becoming more strident, and when the vote was taken it was 526 in favor, 70 against, with 45 abstentions. I think it is fair to say that each “side” believed it had been ambushed by the other.

To a significant extent, the American and Canadian churches have ignored the Resolution (it was five years to the day after passing it that our General Convention confirmed the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire!), and we have been trying to figure out how to resolve the contradictions involved in all of this ever since.

This time around, the Bible Study discussions flow into the Indaba groups, and they are somewhat related to the various Plenary sessions, as well. But, rather than scholarly and/or committee reports, what we will issue as a Statement of the Conference will be largely composed of a kind of composite “snapshot” of what the world’s Anglican Bishops believe regarding a wide variety of topics and issues as of summer 2008.

If an opinion is voiced once or twice in an Indaba group it probably will not make it into the “snapshot.” But if it comes up half a dozen or more times, in as many different groups, it almost certainly will.

As I reported earlier, all of this is in the category of “building relationships,” and getting to know each other in prayer, Bible Study, and “sharing.” It is also, clearly, laying a foundation for addressing (again!) the major remaining issues of the Conference: sexuality and the development of an Anglican Covenant.

This afternoon we had the second major “Hearing” on what is being envisioned by the “Windsor Continuation Group” as to “how we get from here to there” (“there” being the restoration of trust, fellowship, and communion). I need to quote to you at length from what we were given.

PLEASE NOTE: whether this survives at all, let alone in anything recognizably like what I am about to type, is anything but certain. There remains a great deal of objection to even having a Covenant, let alone to some of the specifics.

Nevertheless, here is what was handed out:

* The Windsor Report sets out requests for three moratoria in relation to the public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions, the consecration to the episcopate of those living in partnered gay relationships and the cessation of cross border interventions.
* There have been different interpretations of the sense in which “moratorium” was used in the Windsor Report. Our understanding is that moratorium refers to both future actions and is also retrospective: that is that it requires the cessation of activity. This necessarily applies to practices that may have already been authorized as well as proposed for authorization in the future.
* The request for moratorium applies in this way to the complete cessation of (a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, (b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and (c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction.
* The three moratoria have been requested several times: Windsor (2004); Dromantine (2005); Dar es Salaam (2007) and the requests have been less than wholeheartedly embraced on all sides.
* The failure to respond presents us with a situation where if the three moratoria are not observed, the communion is likely to fracture. The patterns of action currently embraced with the continued blessings of same-sex unions and of interventions could lead to irreparable damage.
* The call for the three moratoria on these issues relates to their controversial nature. This poses the serious question of what response should be made to those who act contrary to the moratorium during the Covenant process and who should make a response.

The WCG goes on to propose the swift formation of a “Pastoral Forum” – noting that it is essentially the same thing as a number of previously proposed bodies, a “Council of Advice” (Windsor), a “Panel of Reference” (Dromantine), a “Pastoral Council” (Dar es Salaam), and the Statement from the American House of Bishops (September 2007) acknowledging a “useful role for communion wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight.”

The WCG proposes that the President of the Forum should be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would also appoint its episcopal chair, and its members, including members of the Instruments of Communion and a constituency “representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole.”

It says the Forum should be empowered to act quickly and decisively, especially through the ministry of its Chair, who would work closely with the ABC in the exercise of his ministry.

“The Forum would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It could also offer guidance on what response and any diminishment of standing within the communion might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria are broken.”

I found this sentence particularly heartening: “We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in The Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own Province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion.”

And, finally: “The proliferation of ad hoc episcopal and archepiscopal ministries cannot be maintained within a global Communion. We recommend that the Pastoral Forum develop a scheme in which existing ad hoc jurisdictions could be held ‘in trust’ in preparation for their reconciliation within their proper Provinces.”

Will any of this actually be put into place? Will any of it matter? Only time will tell. But, two weeks into our time in England, things are becoming interesting.

With warmest regards in our Lord,

–(The Right Rev.) John W. Howe is Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

My initial take on the report is cautiously positive, understanding four principles of note.

First, we have been here before. We have been here with Windsor and with Dar. And those two documents recommendations were simply not fulfilled ultimately.

Second, documents are different from action. We can be even ecstatic over a document, but that does not mean that any action will be taken. I suppose it all depends on whether the Archbishop of Canterbury is willing for those words to be implemented.

Read it all.

A new pastoral forum is to be set up to bring rebel provinces into line in the Anglican Communion.

The 650 bishops meeting at the Lambeth Conference in Kent debated proposals today for a body headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that would prevent any more consecrations of gay bishops or same-sex blessings.

The forum will also clamp down on “cross-border interventions” such as those where conservative bishops from Africa have consecrated bishops to pastor congregations in the United States.

The document says the forum is needed because repeated requests for moratoria on gay consecrations, same-sex blessings and cross-border interventions have not been heeded.

Read it all.

Here is the link.

CT: Some conservatives were anxious in coming to Lambeth and some here have actually said they don’t feel any hope towards the future of the Anglican Communion. Do you share those feelings?

TW: I always tell my staff at home to distinguish between feelings and thinking because your feelings will come and go if you are tired or in a meeting perhaps and then you will feel like all hope is lost. You have to go back and pray and think.

The situation is still extremely complex. The Archbishop of Canterbury said when he invited us all that if you accept this invitation you are accepting to work with the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. The Archbishop reiterated that on Sunday afternoon and has reiterated it publicly several times.

If the Windsor Report is properly followed through and if the Covenant process actually gets somewhere where it is designed to get then things can happen which will give hope to a lot of people who are at present in danger of losing hope. I say that in general terms because I am not in charge of the process, I’m not on the group for taking forward either of those things. So I am not entirely sure what will happen with either of them and to put it devoutly I am not sure how the Holy Spirit will lead those who are working on those things.

CT: So you are open to the Covenant?

TW: Yes, sure. We have to be. In the last few Lambeths, many people believed they were working in a parliamentary style process with big sessions and big debates that would polarise people instantly and that isn’t necessarily the right way of doing Christian decision making. So the Archbishop has taken the risk ”“ and it is a risk – of abandoning that model and saying let’s pray together, work together and be together in all sorts of contexts and we will see what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church in the midst of that.

Read it all.

A new Pastoral Forum is to be set up to bring rebel provinces into line in the Anglican Communion. The bishops at Lambeth are presently discussing the third ‘observations’ document of the Windsor Continuation Group that sets out why the forum is needed. It says this is necessary because repeated requests for moratoria on gay consecrations, same-sex blessings and cross-border interventions have not been heeded. I’ve been given an advance copy of the document. It says: ‘The failure to respond presents us with a situation where if the three moratoria are not observed, the Communion is likely to fracture.’

The document proposes the forum as a “key mechanism to achieve reconciliation”.

Read it all.

Follow along closely.

Read it all.

At the AAC, we learned long ago that since the media can help or hurt you, treat them humanely, the way you would wish to be treated. When an event occurs, certainly those present take away their own impressions, but for the vast majority who will only read about it or see it on the TV, the media interprets the event. Why would anyone go out of their way to make life miserable for the media? Although GAFCON in Jerusalem wasn’t perfect from a media standpoint, there was a sincere attempt to get the media what they needed: access inside during plenary sessions, interviews with bishops, press conferences, etc. In retrospect, could it have been done better? Absolutely, but there was a genuine attempt to do the right thing for the media.

Contrasted with that philosophy is the view that the media is your enemy and you must a) keep them out, b) choose between good and bad media for access, and c) have everyone so disciplined that their talking points are recited no matter what the question. One has to pity the media, seeing how they are being treated at Lambeth, but then again, it doesn’t sound like the bishops themselves are being all that well taken care of, either. The secrecy thing is either hilarious or pathetic: is not everyone there under godly authority? Are some there in defiance of their House of Bishops or their Primate? Are they making a “prophetic statement” by being there anyway? Yet their “prophetic statement” must be kept secret.

Read it all.

We enter now into the final and crucial week. The Bible Study and Indaba Groups have begun to peel away layers of caution and hesitation therein laying bare many difficult issues. This has been painful at times as we’ve faced the chasm that divides us. Like many of you, particularly those who have been to General Convention or provincial gatherings of one kind or another, I have lived with this chasm for so many years that it is easy to forget that for Christians elsewhere it is hardly the most pressing issue they face. For some of them it is the need for food, shelter, clean water, coping as refugees or holding firm to the gospel in the midst of persecution that dominates their ministries. Yet the crisis that The Episcopal Church threw the Anglican Communion into in 2003 has not only complicated our lives as Episcopalians but has made it increasingly difficult for them to do their ministries in what were already demanding cultural contexts. A conference such as Lambeth must address many concerns and these are often interconnected and multilayered. Perhaps I can share some of our discussions with you later, but for now there is a verse in the Mosaic Law that comes to mind as I write about these two seminal groups of the conference: “You shall not uncover your sister’s nakedness.” That is, it would be inappropriate in my mind to discuss in any detail what is transpiring in the Bible Study and Indaba Groups. Beyond saying it is the striving of people from diverse cultures to engage one another respectfully yet honestly in order to understand what the challenges are that dominate the lives of our people.

The last two meetings of the Self-Select Session, The Bible and Human Sexuality, I attended (Wednesday and Friday) were much improved over the first. We looked at certain Old Testament passages regarding human sexuality in the second session and New Testament passages in the third session. Some of each session was spent in a lecture format, some in small group work and some in larger group discussion. The time was hardly sufficient for the subject at hand. At the end of our final meeting an Australian bishop made a statement that was in a way a question, but there was hardly any answer that seemed sufficient with which the presenter could reply””“Surely a loving Heavenly Father would not leave his children confused about something so fundamental as human sexuality”¦if so, I’ve been wasting my time for forty-three years!” I suppose some were put off by the force of his words, but it seemed to me a necessary and poignant pause with which to end our time.

Read it all.

Nobody, not even Professor Ian Douglas of the Lambeth Design Group, can say what’s going to happen this week. Rumours abound and red herrings come and go. There has been one hearing of the Windsor Continuation Group and two presentations. The hearing on part C is scheduled for Monday afternoon.

The indabas get to grips with the Covenant, the ongoing Windsor processes and Communion matters in general on Friday and Saturday. All are feeding back into the final Reflections document which the Archbishop of Canterbury will present at the conclusion of the Conference. Self-select sessions are continuing to run on related matters.

Any kind of substantial recommendation about ecclesiastical structures and processes would have to be done through the provinces and the ACC. Ian Douglas describes both Windsor and the accompanying Covenant processes as separate strands weaving into the Lambeth programme. Bishops present can share their mind on the Covenant: all bishops, including absentees, will complete a questionnaire. All provinces will be invited to respond again at the end of this year; round three begins in early 2009, with a third draft taken to the ACC meeting in Jamaica in May.

Read it all. I agree emphatically with that first line. Yesterday in the parish where I serve I was asked constantly about what is really happening at Lambeth 2008 and I said no one–not even those who are there–really knows. All you can do is get glimpses. This is a time for perserverance, patience and prayer–KSH.

This is a crucial week for the Anglican Communion. This afternoon, we get the third document from the Windsor Continuation Group. That could be a reiteration of Windsor, or an attempt to enforce Dar es Salaam, in other words, the removal of rebellious Primates from the councils of the church. Both conservatives and liberals could then be at risk. Then there are the Covenant and human sexuality debates. Liberals are deeply unhappy about the Covenant, in particular the appendix. Read it here and you’ll understand why. Conservatives are even more unhappy about TEC resistance to rowing back on human sexuality, as made clear by Bishop Mouneer Anis in his letter back home to Egypt. (Dr Anis pictured here by George Conger.)

Then on Sunday afternoon we get the Archbishop of Canterbury’s final reflections.

Even Anglican bishops are human beings. It might be going too far to make of the weather here a pathetic fallacy, although the Bible does it often. In any case, the latter-day prophets that man the Met Office might have got it wrong. But if we do get some horrible British weather here over the next few days, as sadly seems likely, I just can’t envisage the bishops continuing to get along as well as they have begun to do. The weather vane will turn, again.

Read it all.

Are we more prejudiced over here? “I would say you are just as far along this issue as we are, only you won’t admit it,” he says. “You have so many gay clergy, gay partnered clergy, gay couples who are both clergy. The bishops know it. Their congregations know it. But can you get anyone to talk about it? Oh no. I think it’s a hold-over from Victorian times.”

Irrelevant, out of touch with society, blinkered . . . no description could be more damaging for a church with a falling roll call that is signally failing to attract new generations. Robinson says Williams knows this. It’s also one of the reasons why he is happy to be a thorn in the side of Anglicanism: “I am simply not willing to let these guys meet without being reminded that in every single one of their churches, no matter what country it is in, they all have gay and lesbian people.”

Perhaps this is just what the Anglican church needs: a natural self-publicist who is equally comfortable hobnobbing with the likes of Sir Ian McKellan, the gay actor, as he is talking about the scriptures. Robinson seems happy to accept the mantle of missionary: “I think the American compulsion to talk about everything openly is a great strength ”“ and a weakness. We appear unnecessarily brash, but I love that about us. I feel called to be as open as I can be about my life so that young lesbians and gay men will understand that they can have wonderful relationships, be mothers and fathers and [achieve] real distinction for themselves in their careers.

“Does anyone think that if I were hit by one of your marvellous double-decker buses this issue is going to go away? That’s what’s so remarkable about the Archbishop of Sudan’s statement this week that, if I resigned, the church would go back to being the way it was.”

Read it all.

Religion is as long as a piece of string; true faith lies in the heart of the believer and is rarely susceptible to argument. Clearly, for lots of Muslims Islam is not a doctrine of gentleness, tolerance, sexual equality, forgiveness, democracy and all the rest. For countless others it clearly is.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church ”“ if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools ”“ personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

So-called religious community leaders, or umbrella groups of religious bodies, must of course be free to associate as they like in private, in a free country, but publicly they must be ignored. Publicly they must not teach or promote illegal prejudices. Forced into the private sphere, denied the oxygen of publicity, power and influence, highly politicised religious groups will wither on the vine. Perhaps, in that wonderful phrase of Yeats, they might even wither into truth.

Read it all.

Evangelicalism, now the only other real party, has also failed badly, particularly in not developing an intellectual culture among clergy and laity in the nation to engage with secularist relativism and hedonism. During the 19th Century evangelicals transformed culture with their societies and projects to improve social conditions and reach all levels of the nation. This is hardly the case now, despite the heroic efforts of many parish clergy. The liberals have decided to place the unity of the body of Christ well behind the gay agenda, also a useful way of purging the church of evangelicals, as happened in the USA. With conservative catholic Anglicans now very rare, only the evangelicals will stand for biblical trinitarianism rather than a multi faith theism.

The success of the gay lobby will not mean ”˜inclusion’ but a real splintering of liberals and evangelicals, management and workers, into two churches in England. Newman, ever the polemicist, would be delighted at this looming catastrophe for his old church.

Read it all.

All this matters today because the integrity of the Communion is under threat from the impoverished extremes of liberals and conservatives. If liberals want to broaden the priesthood to include women and gay bishops or if conservatives want to oppose any such development, then they must produce theological arguments from within the Episcopal tradition. Both must also respect the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury as ”˜first among equals’. Otherwise, liberal and conservative bishops would depart from Anglican orthodoxy and loose their own legitimacy.

It is hard to see how the conflicting visions can be reconciled. But in order to reunify the 80-million strong worldwide Communion, Anglicans could do worse than recover Anglican theology. Rowan Williams has taken a first step by questioning the non-theological motivations that prompted liberals to press ahead with appointing a gay bishop and conservatives to establish a rival council of bishops.
His critics rightly contend that his leadership since 2003 has not succeeded in breaking the deadlock. Though he inherited many problems from his predecessor, thus far he has failed to change the terms of the debate ”“ not least because his own stance has at times oscillated between social liberalism and theological conservatism.

Read it all.

(ENS) Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, speaking in a brief interview before the bishops’ traditional group photo, acknowledged that “there are some frustrations, but it’s important to let the process progress. We are working at getting it right.” The majority of the groups are working as hoped, he said.

Bishop Mark Beckwith of the Diocese of Newark (New Jersey) wrote in a message to his diocese that “the indaba process has challenged the Western linear way of proceeding — and I think it has opened up creativity. It certainly has exposed a deep desire that I have heard from others that we hold together as a unique body of Christ, while acknowledging that we are indeed being buffeted about by serious difference and disagreement.”

He added that, “the indaba process seems to enable us to express our disagreements about theology and sexuality openly and honestly.”

Bishop Robert O’Neill of Colorado acknowledged that “there has been frustration. Part of it is the physical layout of (our group’s) room; it’s difficult to sit facing each other. Some of it arises out of a sensation there is a Western structure overlaid on an African structure. We talked openly today. We identified things that are important for us to engage. There was a desire to take stock and make sure we had time to talk about things that are more difficult.”

Some bishops — among them Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet, England writing in a blog or Internet diary — thought the process was trying to contain too many topics in too little time.

Read it all.

This is a good place from which to participate in the Lambeth Conference which is trying to build something new while living in the ruins of a succession of spiritual communities. As everyone knows, we are in crisis, and what at one time seemed primarily an abstract problem of theological coherence has caused the Anglican Communion to begin to break up.

It is an unprecedented situation which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has decided needs an unprecedented response. Gone is the approach of the last hundred years of Lambeth Conferences, which developed, debated and voted on large numbers of substantive resolutions in a parliament of bishops. In the Archbishop`s view, resolutions (notably Resolution 1.10 of the last Lambeth Conference which addressed the blessing of same sex unions and bishops invading each other’s jurisdictions) only heighten tensions in the Communion and are rarely put into action. In its place he has instituted a heavily managed process of small group discussions on prescribed topics, interspersed with optional lectures and presentations on related (and unrelated) topics.

Interestingly, the Archbishop has by a tour de force single-handedly altered the balance of power between his own office and that of the Lambeth Conference. For his power is now no longer simply one of invitation to the bishops to a conference which he hosts. It is one in which he now decides what the bishops can and cannot do when they gather. This is easy to exaggerate, and I know the Archbishop has no lust for power, but it is worth observing, if only as a footnote.

To my knowledge, the only person who has called the Archbishop`s bluff, and that affectionately and only by implication, was that wise observer of the Anglican scene, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who, in a sparsely attended `self-select` session on the Windsor Report on Wednesday, teasingly observed that the main difference between the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Archbishop of Canterbury was that the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised infinitely more power over his bishops.

Read it carefully and read it all (by the way knowledgeable readers may know that Kallistos Ware is a former Anglican).

It is forty years since The Malta Report set Anglicans and Catholics on the way towards unity. Throughout these years, the Catholic Church has always sought dialogue with the Anglican Communion as a whole, with all the challenge that your treasured diversity can sometimes bring to the table. So our Church takes no pleasure at all to see the current strains in your communion ”“ we have committed ourselves to a journey towards unity, so new tensions only slow the progress. But they do seem to concern matters that are very important. These discussions are about the degree of unity in faith necessary for Christians to be in communion, not least so that they may be able to offer the Gospel confidently to the world. Our future dialogue will not be easy until such fundamental matters are resolved, with greater clarity.

People sometimes ask me: ”˜Has it been worth it?’ ”˜You’ve given a great deal of your life to this work and yet where are the results? Are we any closer yet to being united?’ My answer is ”˜Yes, it has.’ I have said many times that I believe the path to unity is like a road with no exit for those who genuinely seek unity and are also seeking the conversion it requires. That’s because I know it is Christ’s will that we be one, and however long it takes that has to be our goal. Pope Benedict again and again comes back to this as at the heart of what he is working for.

Moreover, I am sure that the dialogue Statements of ARCIC, whether or not they are accepted in their entirety, do signal real convergence. We now have the substantial consensus between us on Eucharist and about Ministry, indicated by ARCIC’s work. To the extent that we have achieved genuine convergence in these and other matters, to that extent we are also drawing nearer to the truth together. If truth really is expressed in these agreements they must sooner or later bear fruit. They are ”˜money in the bank’, whose value will one day be clearly seen. We can already notice one result of this ”“ in the changed relationships of these years, and the ways Anglicans and Catholics can sometimes work together with greater confidence in the faith we share.

So I am not gloomy. Dialogue will continue in some form. Even if we sometimes find it hard to discern just how to go forward we cannot give up on seeking the unity Christ wills. As The Gift of Authority puts it so well, ”˜Only when all believers are united in the common celebration of the Eucharist will the God whose purpose it is to bring all things into unity in Christ be truly glorified by the people of God’ (paragraph 33).

Read it all.

“Sudan came out with the statement for reasons of their own, and felt they had to say something. It was important for them to make that statement, and we appreciate them for that. I don’t think you will find any of the Global South provinces disagreeing with what they say. The way they put it will be coming from Sudan, but the essence ”” yes.”

Archbishop Chew had not studied the statement, but there was nothing new in it, he suggested: it repeated Windsor and was consistent with the Primates’ statement from Dromantine. “They are not calling for anything new, which would have been unfair. They are saying that if we do not take up what we have committed [ourselves to] seriously, then even in the eyes of the secular world, our credibility is reduced.”

The Global South comprises more than 75 per cent of the total membership of the Communion. It was speaking what the whole Communion should be speaking in its good times, the Archbishop suggested. Although nothing could be solved in the two weeks of the Conference, and even the Covenant would have to undergo the lengthy constitutional process of being returned to the provinces, the dragging out of the issue would be unfair on the Windsor group and the Covenant group, and could not continue.

“We have more priorities in our home provinces than in the Communion: we cannot think of it as the thing more important than the diocese,” he said. “It is taking a big toll on our time. This is the fifth time I have been in the UK on a working trip. I can’t afford that. It isn’t fair. So I hope and don’t think that [the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ] words can be taken in isolation.

Read it all.

Most Christians believe gay sex is a sin and that practising gays should not be ordained. A survey by ComRes of 517 Protestant Christians in Britain found that only 3 per cent of nonCatholic Christians believe homosexuality is not a sin, while 81 per cent say it is and 15 per cent say “it is more complicated than this”. Taking into account all Protestant denominations, 81 per cent believe that gay sex is sinful.

The survey also found that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, lacks majority support. Only one in three Anglicans said Dr Williams represented their views.

Read it all.

Finally, I was astonished by your declaration that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have satisfied the requirements of the Windsor Report. I note that you acknowledge that this is merely your personal view but where is your evidence? In our Dromantine Communiqué we said that “there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion,” and that because of this, “the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered.” [12] I have seen no change in this and no willingness to fully embrace Lambeth 1.10 as our current agreement on matters of human sexuality ”“ as you know this is the underlying assumption of the Windsor Report.

I was present in Nottingham for the recent ACC meeting and heard both Presiding Bishop Griswold and Archbishop Hutchinson, and their teams, try to justify their innovations. They failed. They made clear that there is no turning back and they did so with little or no reference to the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures or the devastation that their actions have brought on us all.

While I am grateful that “regret” has been expressed and a temporary moratorium on Episcopal consecrations has been established, same-sex blessings continue to be authorized in some dioceses in both Provinces. And we all know that this is no more than a brief cessation of provocative actions and that no permanent change of mind is intended.

—Archbishop of Nigeria Peter Akinola in an open letter to Archbishop Robin Eames in 2005, highlighting the central problem which existed then, exists now, and which the report about the September 2007 House of Bishops meeting evaluated incorrectly, as Gene Robinson said at the time. It must be addressed this week in Lambeth if the huge breach in the communion is to move toward healing–KSH.

God took these bell ringers from their individual circumstances, with varying degrees of faith, wove them together in mutual submission to the discipline of the bells and used them to make something both wondrous and beautiful.

Key is a willingness to submit to discipline and authority. The giving of time and talent, the individual struggles to learn the “changes,” are important. But without submission to a common authority, the bell captain, they’d just be individuals pulling on ropes and ringing bells producing chaos of notes and chords rung at random. This would quickly drive the town’s population to distraction and anger. Not a pleasant result. No blessing to be gained here.

A church, or communion which has lost sight of its mission, pays increasingly less attention to the rich and varied accumulated wisdom of its past, and is unwilling to submit to the discipline required to achieve the interdependence that both creates community and blesses the wider populace, is a church of neither sacred nor secular value.

Even if the ringers affirmed the same faith with like-hearted passion, the bells would not long sound without acceptance of a common discipline of purpose and accountability.

Neither can the Communion proclaim a Gospel that blesses both the sanctified and the secular without a commonly held commitment to a discipline requiring voluntary submission of independent lives to a greater purpose than self-expression and personal gratification.

Read it all.

Advocates of the encyclical draw assurance from the declining fertility rates across the developed world, especially in Europe. No country in Europe has a fertility rate above 2.1, the number of children each woman needs to have by the end of her child-bearing years to keep a population stable.

Even with increasing immigration, Europe is projected to suffer a population loss in the 21st century that will rival the impact of the Black Death, leading some to talk about the continent’s “demographic suicide.”

Not coincidentally, Europe is also the most secular region of the world, where the use of artificial contraception is utterly unproblematic. Among those committed to Catholic teaching, the obvious question becomes: What more clear proof of the folly of separating sex and child-bearing could one want?

So the future of “Humanae Vitae” as the teaching of the Catholic Church seems secure, even if it will also continue to be the most widely flouted injunction of the church at the level of practice.

The encyclical’s surprising resilience is a reminder that forecasting the Catholic future in moments of crisis is always a dangerous enterprise ”” a point with relevance to a more recent Catholic predicament. Many critics believe that the church has not yet responded adequately to the recent sex-abuse scandals, leading to predictions that the church will “have to” become more accountable, more participatory and more democratic.

While those steps may appear inevitable today, it seemed unthinkable to many observers 40 years ago that “Humanae Vitae” would still be in vigor well into the 21st century.

Catholicism can and does change, but trying to guess how and when is almost always a fool’s errand.

Read it all.

Click here; starting at about 9:35 there is a segment on the Lambeth spouses conference (about 4 minutes) which concludes with an interview with Dr. Jane Williams (just a little over 4 minutes, who delightfully responds at the end to queries about her husband, Dr. Rowan Williams). Then starting about 27:45 there are three segments, the first by Trevor Barnes on the consideration of global warming which includes comments from the Archbishop of Burundi, Bernard Ntahoturi, the second a conversation with Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, and the third with the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas of Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts, a member of the Lambeth Design Group (a total of about 14 minutes for the three consecutive segments).