The document that came out of the Lambeth Conference, the final draft of which we saw at the last plenary session yesterday, is a distillation of the Indaba Group conversations that have gone on over the length of the conference. All of us were assigned to Bible study groups that met each morning. Five Bible study groups constituted an Indaba Group, which met after the individual study groups.

What has emerged from the extended time in the Bible study and Indaba Groups is relationship. Bishops spoke honestly and deeply. We found places of profound commonality, and we named honestly pain in division that was not erased.

One Sudanese bishop said this, “After 22 years of suffering (civil war) we have learned not to run away based on what we hear, but to come and see, and then decide rather we need to run away. We are not leaving these friendships.”

There was much talk about “What I need to take back to my diocese.” People asked me that quite a lot. Was it moratoria on blessings, on incursions? Was it commitment to the relief of global suffering through the Millennium Development Goals process? An Anglican Covenant?

For me it is the relationships. Unlike most of the other products, the usefulness of the relationships formed at the Lambeth Conference will lie in the extension of the relationships into our diocese, and beyond. As I wrote in an earlier posting, part of the way bishops must now fulfill their ministry of unity is by actively extending the relationships they have to others, and even understanding that these relationships need to develop apart from the bishops themselves. I am coming home to the beautiful Diocese of California knowing that there are great opportunities for becoming a global body that contributes to the healing of the world, and that people in the Bay Area are eager to be part of this. The same Sudanese bishop who spoke so movingly of his province’s brave journey to Lambeth (when significant neighbor provinces stayed away based on what they had “heard”) has asked me whether people in California could help his people with the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Sudan. Who better than we?

As to the other ”˜products’ I mentioned above: the document we produced has real significance as it reflects the searching, prayerful conversations over a two week period of over 600 Anglican bishops. The points of substantial agreement are thus worth our attention. In California we will be seeking ways to utilize the indaba process to consider the contents of the document, absorb and extend its learnings, and contribute back to the whole.

At the same time, the document is not legislation. We will pay close attention to it, but we must not reify the agreement points in it into laws, and we should resist interpretations that seek to employ those agreements as laws.

Read it all.

Two aspects that formed a continuing thread through the Conference were those of mission and support for the Millennium Development Goals. This is what the Anglican Communion does in its day to day life in the wider world. The march down Whitehall past Parliament to Lambeth Palace was deeply impressive. As one policeman said to Sheila and me, it is rare to have a demonstration in favour of something. The significance of the Millennium Development Goals was reinforced at many points in the Conference, and when the Bishops gathered in front of Lambeth Palace, we were addressed by the Prime Minister. It was a remarkable speech, in which he demonstrated his deep concern and great knowledge of these issues; it was greatly appreciated by the Bishops.

As the Conference proceeded, it was impossible not to be aware that we had the privilege of being present at a very significant occasion ”” an occasion at which it can truly be said that the Holy Spirit had led the Church through and around its difficulties into a new place.

Many expected that the Anglican Communion would not survive the Conference, but it was clear that the vast majority were determined that we should stay together within the Communion, and behind the Archbishop’s leadership. Whilst there was no expectation that all the problems would be solved, there was a confidence that a new way of being the Church was emerging, based on a willingness to listen and participate in the struggle to grapple with these issues. This made the absences all the more painful.

Ten years ago, the Conference concluded with three days in which the Resolutions developed by the various Sections were debated in a plenary session and voted on. Hurriedly written and densely worded Resolutions were passed by an assembly of people, many of whom could not have been aware of the implications of the actions, and were unable to follow the proceedings or take part in them. A moment lodged in my memory, is the occasion when a Sudanese Bishop tried to speak about violence and warfare (his wife had been killed a month beforehand), but was prevented from doing so because he had not put his name down to speak two days beforehand. It was the Archbishop’s determination that the end of this Conference should be different that shaped its structure.

The Anglican Covenant, has been developed since the Windsor Report of 2004, and has been refined at various subsequent meetings. This document was examined by the Bishops, they did not vote on it, and the process of refining the Covenant goes on (possibly for some years). It was surprising that there was such broad support for so much of the Covenant, and it is now referred to the Anglican Consultative Council in September, and will be seen by the Provinces and Dioceses after that – so that we will see it in due course.

Read it all.

TORONTO – Greyhound has scrapped an ad campaign that extolled the relaxing upside of bus travel after one of its passengers was accused of beheading and cannibalizing another traveler.

Yet I must say that, like many Anglican traditionalists, I have often been frustrated with Rowan in his role as Archbishop. Primarily it is his apparent passivity that has frustrated me: I have wanted him to take action, to do things, to shape events for the cause of orthodoxy, but he has persistently refused to intervene in the life of the Communion, and to some extent in his own Church of England, in clear and overt ways ”” in political ways. I and many others have wanted him to be a leader and this above all seems what he has refused to be.

But in these past few days I have been wondering whether there might be a method in Rowan’s madness ”” or rather in God’s. Might it be possible that while Rowan is most certainly not the kind of leader we want, he is precisely the kind we need? That his leadership is not that of a Churchill but rather a Desert Father? We want decision, action, clearly set plans; Rowan offers prayer, meditation, stillness, silence. He models those disciplines for us, and in so doing (silently) commends them.

What if that is what we Anglicans actually need?

Read it all.

Until now the clearest statement of Dr Williams’ liberal views was an essay, The Body’s Grace, published in 1989 in which he argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant it acknowledge the validity of non-procreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

But he provoked criticism from liberals in the Church of England, and the United States in particular, for seeming to backtrack once he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda instead abiding by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.

Liberals from the US Episcopal Church, who see the issue as one of justice for an oppressed minority, were particularly distressed at the Lambeth Conference when the Archbishop appeared to blame them for the growing rift in the Church.

His leadership at Lambeth was a success because, while he failed to resolve the differences in the Church, he avoided outright schism. In spite of everything he has done to maintain unity, however, conservatives are still reluctant to trust Dr Williams because of his theological stance.

Read it all.

A new census of Muslim congregations is reviving controversies over how many Muslims are in the USA, how they are counted and why it matters.

For minority religious groups, particularly Muslims and Jews, higher numbers can mean enhanced social and political clout in the U.S. public square.

On the campaign trail, will a politician stop by a synagogue or a mosque? When members of Congress vote on Middle Eastern policy, which home state constituency has more influence? When the school board sets next year’s vacation calendar, whose holy days are recognized?

“Numbers are a major factor in being marginalized or being recognized by decision-makers in public policy,” says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council for American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group and a sponsor of this second mosque census.

Read it all

Robinson’s presence outside the Canterbury meeting didn’t lead to violence. Inside the tent, Williams didn’t challenge the 650 church leaders to vote on any resolutions involving homosexuality, averting a meltdown – for now – but also forestalling a true attempt to wrestle with a problem that seems nearly unsolvable:

Will the liberals acquiesce to Williams’s urging that they reject gay clergy? What if they don’t? Can Anglican leaders persuade the conservatives to stick around? What if they can’t? Will Robinson continue to be treated as a second-class bishop?

Among the Anglicans interviewed by reporters outside the Lambeth conference in recent days were several who expressed frustration with the focus on Robinson and the issue of homosexuality. They said they wished their church leaders could simply settle it once and for all and move on to issues of war and global poverty and environmental degradation.

Chances are, Archbishop Williams would second that sentiment. But the Lambeth Conference brought Anglicans no closer to that day.

Read it all.

A lot of material of interest here, including this:

A.)Stewardship Conference

Bishop Ousley reported to the Standing Committee that all clergy and senior wardens had received from him a communication regarding stewardship and evangelism in an attempt to get the diocese to take these subjects seriously. Our track record is poor, our attendance and membership having declined 31% since 1994….

Or this:

E.)Future of the Church

When questioned about the future of the church Bishop Ousley responded that he foresees turmoil for a number of years. Denominationalism is breaking down. In the ensuing discussion Rev. Downie stated that we are reaping the fruits of failure in formation.

However of greatest interest was this revealing section:

C.)Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh

In response to a question from the Standing Committee, Bishop Ousley stated that the sixty days of notification has expired and the House of Bishops can vote to depose Bishop Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh at any time. The House of Bishops has been polled regarding Bishop Duncan’s deposition and Bishop Ousley noted that he responded with no preference as to whether the House of Bishops holds a special meeting or takes up the deposition at the next regular meeting. Bishop Duncan will be deposed but it appears that the House of Bishops will wait until their next regular meeting which is scheduled to take place after the Lambeth Conference.

Read it all.

The communion’s strength has always been its capacity to fudge difference in the interest of cohesion; to place human relationship before rigidity.

This does not mean Anglicanism is out of the woods on human sexuality issues. The risk of schism remains.

But what it succeeded in doing at Lambeth was to secure more – and very necessary – time. It also allowed those present to gain a deeper understanding of where others are coming from on same-sex issues.

The scale of the differences between liberal and conservative elements within the communion is demonstrated by the fact that approximately a quarter of the communion’s bishops were absent from the conference – in protest at the handling of these same-sex issues by Dr Williams and others.

Read it all.

The final day of the conference and we all anxiously look forward to heading home. One last Bible study. We will miss our time together and appreciate the new friendships. The Archbishop concludes the afternoon with his third address. Though not all are pleased, we manage to survive without any resolutions. Thanks to the hard work of a small but industrious group of listeners and writers, including the leadership of your very own bishop, Neil Alexander, we are given a set of reflections which sums up the conversations of the past three weeks. I think we have had a break through, a serious time together without winners and losers, only brothers and sisters in Christ. In his closing sermon at the Cathedral, the Archbishop challenged us to take our reflections home and put some flesh on them as in “The Word became flesh.” He called us to make this a living document; to continue to work with the same collegiality that marked this conference. Pray God will give us the will and the ability to carry that out.

Read it all.

On the one hand, most of the bishops’ time was taken up with discussion in what were called “Indaba” discussion groups of about 40 bishops each in which the focus was listening and mutual understanding. “It was a great success,” he said.

But there were also presentations made by the Windsor Continuation Group, a committee of three Primates, two other bishops, and a retired Dean, which the Archbishop of Canterbury set up and charged with finding a “way forward” for the Communion based on the 2004 Windsor Report.

Bishop Ingham said he felt the Windsor Continuation Group demonstrated “rigidity and a lack of wisdom.”

“The primary mindset of the Windsor Group is conformity or exclusion. As yet they display no capacity for creating space, only for taking it away.”

Read it all.

In the light of recent comments made by Archbishop Alan Harpur, there is a need for a fresh Biblical integrity within the Anglican Irish House of Bishops.

The Primate’s remarks inferred that, in certain circumstances, homosexual behaviour should be viewed as a ”˜natural’ (acceptable?) pattern of human behaviour.

Such an assertion is at odds with Scripture, common sense living and historic Christian practice.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, is chairman of the committee working on the covenant.

He claims that although the bishops in Canterbury did not want to adopt a Roman Catholic-style hierarchy, they did now accept the need for some mechanism to hold the Communion together.

“I’ve spoken to several bishops who were opposed to it, and who are now willing to give it a try”, he said.

In the past the centre ground of Anglicanism has seemed paralysed, unable to act decisively for fear of losing the liberal Americans and their allies altogether.

But the aim of the new strategy appears to be to isolate the radical liberal and conservative wings of Anglicanism, and create a new, more organised and directed, Communion with or without them.

The Rev Dr Graham Kings, of the moderate evangelical group Fulcrum, said the strategy was one of “intensification”.

The new Communion would be more active, have a corporate presence around the world, more high-level meetings, and possibly regional representatives among the archbishops.

Read it all.

Anyone? I cannot get the link on the Evening Bulletin in Pennsylvania to work, and cannot find the article on their website.

At Lambeth, TEC’s bishops were (whether deliberately, or negligently—it makes no difference) giving out wrong information about the lawsuits they are involved in with their own parishes. The Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Gledhill, in the Province of Canterbury, reports on his Weblog about the meeting of his indaba group on August 2 (Day 18 of the Lambeth Conference):

In the discussion afterwards we are told that the US House of Bishops has regretted for the hurt it has caused and its lack of consultation and has issued a public apology – though no one has the exact wording. We are also told that the Canadians have voted against same-sex blessings – though two dioceses are pressing their bishops to change that. We are told that in the lawsuits in America between parishes and their dioceses it is the dioceses who are the defendants and the conservative parishes who are the accusers.

Since it is well known to many individual Episcopalians who have been involved in the many lawsuits instigated and still pending at all levels here that the statement I have put into boldface type above is simply not the case, it did not take long for a blog reader familiar with the details in Virginia to inform the good Bishop of the facts on the ground there. The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon put the information up on his site at TitusOneNine, and it elicited this comment from a reader:

In the interest of being scrupulously fair: this just refers to the Virginia situation, is it possible there are other parishes/dioceses where the reasserters are suing?

Well, let us be scrupulously fair, and see just what the facts are. The Episcopal Church and/or one of its Dioceses played the role of plaintiff—the party who initiates a case in court, by filing a complaint—in bringing the pending or former lawsuits I have listed below over Church property and assets in the courts of the United States. This list makes no claim to be complete; it comprises just the ones I have read about (I have listed them alphabetically by State, and not chronologically):

Read it all and, yes, do take the time to look up the references.

I have a number of qualms about the validity of Ould’s reading of the Councils’ “principle of diocesan integrity.” First of all, his reading would have required Christians under the authority of Arian or Donatist leaders to remain under that authority ”” that is, under the authority of the very people whose vies the Councils were summoned in order to denounce. It is not likely that Augustine or Jerome would have endorsed the principle that Ould articulates here.

But let me address this issue more directly. I left the Episcopal Church and joined a new Anglican church largely because I did not want to have my son instructed in beliefs I do not share. Consider this: the man who is now the rector at the parish I left ”” a wonderfully kind and generous man, by the way ”” preached, on Easter Sunday no less, that it does not matter whether Jesus was or was not raised physically from the dead. Now, I happen to think that it matters very much whether Jesus was or was not raised from the dead, and unless I am tragically mistaken, St. Paul did too (see 1 Corinthians 15). I am glad that my son, instead of hearing this sermon, heard a sermon from Father Martin Johnson that joyfully and boldly proclaimed the fact of the Resurrection.

What does Peter Ould have to say to me? He does not believe that All Souls’ Church should exist, at least in its current form, so what options does he think were legitimate and appropriate ones for us? Is it his view that we we obliged to remain at our former church and allow our son to receive false teaching ”” and not just from the pulpit ”” which we could then, presumably, correct once we got home? Or would we be allowed to form a new church as long as it had no bishop other than TEC’s ”” an independent church, say? How about becoming Baptists or Presbyterians or Methodists? If Ould’s concern is the maintaining of catholicity, and catholicity requires bishops whose territories are geographically distinct, then attending any of those non-Anglican churches would violate catholicity just as much as attending a church affiliated with the Southern Cone would.

As far as I can tell, then, Ould is saying that the only way for my wife and me to avoid sin in this matter is to allow ourselves and our son to be instructed in heresy.

Read it all.

So the Gospel is written so that we may recognize that (as the hymn has it) ”˜this is our story, this is our song’. Just as when Peter begins to speak of Jesus ministering, loving, dying, rising, the excitement of recognition is too much to contain, and the Holy Spirit floods and invades. And what of us, as heirs of the apostolic witness, how do we begin to tell a story that makes things happen? Because that’s our charge, that’s our task, and we have to tell the story of Jesus in such a way that all those who listen say to themselves, ”˜Yes: this is my story and I never knew it. This is the world in which I belong; this is my inheritance, though I have never lived there.’

So we seek to speak in words that evoke that kind of recognition, knowing that””in the phrases of the Old Testament lesson this evening”””˜The word is not far from any of us.’ And if we tell truthfully and joyfully the story of Jesus, then the Word of God embodied in that story and in that person, will indeed not be far from any of our hearers.

In these last two weeks we’ve often spoken, both in the bishops’ and in the spouses’ conference, about telling our stories. It’s almost a cliché, isn’t it? In a good and properly organized Christian meeting we tell our stories. And that is right and proper, because one of the most significant things any believer can ever do is to say, ”˜Come, and I will tell you what he has done for my soul.’ But as we listen to one another’s stories, I hope and pray that i we have also heard and recognized the one story that makes a difference, the one story that changes the world, that changes how we see ourselves and God and everything. And if that has been part of our experience in this conference, then perhaps we can go back to our local apostolic ministries””and I should add that I mean lay and ordained apostolic ministries here””to tell the story of this meeting, this Lambeth Conference, in such a way that it becomes itself a story that makes things happen. We can ask God to strengthen us and enable us, so to talk about what we’ve received here that something shifts and grows and deepens in the Christian communities to which we belong. We can try to tell the story of the Lambeth ’08 Conference so that something happens, so that Christ comes alive in others.

Read it all.

They are still playing well, especially in that four game sweep of the Brewers in Milwaukee recently.

But we did listen to each other, and we learned from each other. What I’m beginning to call internet inspired stereotypes, have been, in some cases, challenged, and maybe even in a few, overcome. We who are Bishops in the Episcopal Church, I think, sought to faithfully tell the stories of the people we are blessed to serve among. I remain passionately committed to our being a church that is, as our Lord Jesus Christ said, quoting the ancient prophets, “a house of prayer for all people.”

After attending this Lambeth Conference, I am more convinced than ever of the wisdom of the words of then Archbishop Robin Eames, who said that the Windsor Report was the beginning of a process intended to seek genuine healing and reconciliation among us as the Anglican Family of Jesus. In the weeks to come Bishop Gregg, and I will share our experiences with Bishop Marble,who attended the 1998 Lambeth Conference. The three of us look forward to further dialogue with bishops from across the Communion and many other lay and clergy voices, as we all consider how this conference fits into the great scheme of things. The September issue of the Disciple will share some of our more in depth reflections. Our website (www.episdionc.org) contains links to accurate sources of information.

Read it all.

I write this note as I am preparing to return home from the Lambeth Conference. This experience has been one of the most exhaustingly wonderful experiences of my life. It will take days and weeks to fully emotionally unpack and intellectually process all I have seen and heard during these days. You can be sure you will be hearing more from me about them in the months ahead. Let me begin by sharing some initial observations.

There has been released a 43-page document entitled, “Lambeth Indaba: Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008.” The Indaba groups of 40 bishops were designed for “purposeful conversation.” http://www.lambethconference.org/reflections/document.cfm
At the outset the Archbishop of Canterbury had made it known, unlike Lambeth Conferences in the past, which no resolutions would be debated or definitive decisions made. Rather, this was to be a time of sharing where each participant’s voice could be heard.

Each Indaba sent a “Listener” and “Reporter” to share insights from each of the sixteen groups. The Listeners then committed to writing what they heard. A word of caution: this is not an “official” document, but rather a report of our conversations. In my opinion, some parts are well written and thought out. Others, however, read more like minutes of a brainstorming session.

Read it all.

The controversy within the Anglican communion over same-sex issues, considered again at the recently concluded Lambeth Conference, and concern about human rights in China in the context of the Olympic Games, throw up an awkward question.

To what extent is the promotion of human rights a western colonial exercise?

To what extent are so-called “self-evident truths” arising from the Judeo-Christian tradition – still dominant as a pattern of thinking in the West if not any more where religious practice is concerned – simply by-products of a particularly successful culture rather than being “truths” that genuinely have the universal application claimed.

You might ask the same of democracy, still so new where so many of our fellow EU countries are concerned. It remains a novel political system for most countries in eastern Europe and for such western European countries as Spain and Portugal, as well as Greece farther east.

Read it all but when you do remember that Archbishop Rowan Williams made it quite clear that the debate is precisely NOT about rights:

I might just add, perhaps, a note here. One complication in discussing all this is that assumption, readily made, that the blessing of a same sex union and / or the ordination of someone in an active same-sex relationship is simply a matter of human rights.

I’m not saying that is claimed by people within the church but you hear that from time to time. You hear it in the secular press. And that’s an assumption that I can’t accept because I think the issues about what conditions the church lays down for the blessing of unions has to be shaped by its own thinking, its own praying.

Now, there is perfectly reasonable theological reflection on this in some areas, I’m not saying there isn’t. But I don’t want to short-circuit that argument by saying it’s just a matter of rights.

Therefore to say the rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people, as people in society, is not what we are disagreeing about. I hope and pray anyway.

Encouraging and inspiring–watch it all.

The first wave of Americans to default on their home mortgages appears to be cresting, but a second, far larger one is quickly building.

Homeowners with good credit are falling behind on their payments in growing numbers, even as the problems with mortgages made to people with weak, or subprime, credit are showing their first, tentative signs of leveling off after two years of spiraling defaults.

The percentage of mortgages in arrears in the category of loans one rung above subprime, so-called alternative-A mortgages, quadrupled to 12 percent in April from a year earlier. Delinquencies among prime loans, which account for most of the $12 trillion market, doubled to 2.7 percent in that time.

The mortgage troubles have been exacerbated by an economy that is still struggling. Reports last week showed another drop in home prices, slower-than-expected economic growth and a huge loss at General Motors. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate in July climbed to a four-year high.

While it is difficult to draw precise parallels among various segments of the mortgage market, the arc of the crisis in subprime loans suggests that the problems in the broader market may not peak for another year or two, analysts said.

Read it all.

As the Lambeth Conference ends, it remains clear a wide range of opinions exists on its impact, as well as where the Anglican Communion is headed, or where it should be headed.
The Lambeth Conference, held once every 10 years, is a gathering of the leaders of the Anglican Communion for the sake of unity and learning. Over 200 bishops frustrated with deviations from biblical teachings boycotted the conference this year.

The Rev. Edward L. Rix, rector of All Saint’s Church in Wynnewood, said he did not see any substantial conversation occur from Lambeth with the absence of so many significant voices from Africa.
“I don’t think there are substantial discussions going on about homosexuality or authority,” he said. “What is hoped is that some kind of covenant can be created. The problem is that all the instruments of accountability are without teeth. Most of us see it as not having a strong enough footing.”

Read it all.

A 44-page document meant to reflect the experience of the bishops who participated in the 2008 Lambeth Conference is filled with many details from the many conversations that took place during the 18-day gathering in Canterbury — and many important statements about what was discussed.

Yet it admittedly cannot replicate the experience which it describes.

Perth Archbishop Roger Herft, who chaired the document’s writing committee, wrote in the introduction that the end result is a narrative of “our lived experience and the open and honest discussions we have had together.”

Read it all.

Read it all.

With permission–KSH.

At the Lambeth Conference the bishops, but not the journalists had access to an intranet site (a local area network created by the Lambeth Conference) which included a great deal of additional information about the Lambeth Conference. One of the items available on the intranet site was a directory of all the bishops who had registered, but not necessarily paid or showed up.

On the last day Steve Waring working for The Living Church and George Conger working for The Church of England newspaper asked a bishop to access the site and write down a list of all the Anglican bishops on the pre-registration list as well as the name of their province and diocese. That information was then passed along to us at which point the number was then tallied. That is how we arrived at the figure of 617. There were a number of ecumenical bishops present and they were encouraged to be part of the Bible study and indaba discussion groups as full conference participants. The inclusion of all the ecumenical bishops in the attendance figure is how the Lambeth Conference organizers were able to provide a registration number of 670 to the media. The conference organizers repeatedly rebuffed requests for a complete list of bishops present and every time the request was made a different reason was given for why it would not be made public. None of those reasons was really plausible and this aroused our suspicions that there was more to the story than they were telling us.

George Conger has a complete list of everyone who pre-registered and I believe he will be compiling that list and I believe that the Church of England newspaper will be publishing it at a future date. George left the U.K. to return to the U.S. yesterday and when I spoke to him as he was on his way to the airport, he told me that it was his intention to do so, but of course he is free to change his mind. I rather doubt he will, so I think those interested in that information ought to expect it to become public within the next few days. Please be patient and please be charitable with comments and speculation in the meantime and also after it is published.

It is important to note that not every bishop who pre-registered actually showed up. One example is the Bishop from a diocese in the Church of Nigeria. He FAX’d a memo from U.K. on the Saturday before the Lambeth Conference began indicating his intention to attend. However he never showed up. We heard rumors that there were other bishops who didn’t show up either, so the actual number of Anglican bishops who participated in the 2008 Lambeth Conference is probably slightly lower than the number that pre-registered. Keep checking the Church of England website (which also include Religious Intelligence) for more information. This information may also be available through The Living Church as well, but George has all the hard data.

Needless to say the fact that apparently more than 30 percent of the bishops who were invited chose not to attend is information that the conference organizers did not want revealed, especially during the conference itself as it would have caused a number of the bishops themselves to ask hard questions. The bishops also probably would have been less inclined to abide by the strict and frequently repeated warnings they received not to discuss the conference mechanics with the media during the conference. Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy was one of the few bishops courageous enough to speak to the media and entertain questions the conference organizers did not want made public. It is important to note that neither George nor I will ever reveal the identity of the courageous bishop who was willing to provide us with this important information, but I will say that Bishop Ackerman was in no way involved in that project and neither George nor I had anything to do with the setting up of Bishop Ackerman’s informal media briefings.

There were many important things that were accomplished at the conference and while the fact that only about 68 percent of all bishops invited appear to have showed up is very significant, it is not the whole story of the conference and I would ask readers and bloggers not to jump to premature conclusions about those facts. Undoubtedly in days, months and years ahead we will begin to get a better perspective on the historical significance of the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

I would like to remind everyone one more time that pointed personal attacks and uncharitable comments shed little light and reveal far more about the person making the comments than they do about the character of the conference organizers, importance of what the conference produced or what is likely to happen to the Anglican Communion in the future. Rather than being the cause for caustic sarcasm and vicious personal attacks this information ought to drive every Christian to their knees in prayer. The body of the third largest branch of Christianity is suffering – every part of it – whether you happen to identify with it, are in communion with it or not. In the name of Christ, I ask all Christians please to think carefully and prayerfully before posting funny songs, analogies to the Titanic (and other famous historical disasters) as well as unrelentingly negative criticism. I assure you that while such things will undoubtedly get a brief laugh they won’t change anything in the long run. This is a time for speaking the truth in love. I was here and I can tell you that there were important things accomplished and it was not a complete failure/disaster/joke or mistake.

May the Risen Christ have mercy on us all,
Steve Waring, news editor
The Living Church magazine

Unless we as the conservative church are willing to admit that we have sometimes (often?) failed in the call of the Lambeth ”˜98 resolution to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people (and post-gay and post-lesbian, for the conservative church is still shockingly ignorant in how to deal pastorally in this area) then we have no right to ask those whom we disagree with to take such resolutions seriously themselves. What we need at this point then is a serious, critical self-examination. Can we truly say that in all cases we are the ones sinned against? Can we really stand clean in front of the Lord and argue that we have not ourselves sinned in this conflict?

Read it all and I really welcome the call for self-criticism by reasserters which has been one of my big themes over the last five years.

Note: this is a little dated, but contains important information not found elsewhere. Because of the structure of this Lambeth, a lot of what happened will only dribble out in the days and weeks ahead and it will be a while before a coherent and clear picture emerges I think–KSH.

by Andrew Carey

Anglicans need to speak ”˜life’ to each other, rather than ”˜threatening death’ declared the Archbishop of Canterbury in his most significant plea yet to the Lambeth Conference to back his plans for both ”˜covenant’ and ”˜council’ to bring coherence and order to the Anglican Communion.

In a late scheduled Presidential address as the Conference entered its most controversial moments with the final days devoted to Bible, homosexuality and the covenant, Archbishop Williams, made what he described as a ”˜risky’ attempt to interpret both sides of the debate to each other. He also called upon them to ”˜speak from the centre’ in a spirit of generosity.

“At the moment we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life.

What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians,” he declared.

“The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness.”

He called on the bishops to speak life to each other on the basis of backing change to the communion in the form of a covenant, “that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way).”

Only such a covenant, he said, could avoid further disintegration. His acknowledgement that not all may choose to follow the covenant, was left hanging in the air, with no clear direction as to what that would mean for the nonparticipating churches. His address was greeted with no applause, but with ”˜sobriety’ and muted conversation.

The Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish, later revealed that an “inexorable logic” was emerging. He said this was of a “core communion with strengthened structures and some who will not accept that.

There will be continuing fellowship with those churches.”

He likened the relationship to that of the Anglicans and Methodists who are exploring a covenant with each other.

“A major question,” said Bishop Langrish, “is how we move towards that point. The highest degree of fellowship whilst allowing for an orderly separation.”

He said it would continue to be messy and difficult, especially in parts of North America.

Dr William’s plea for a covenant is accepted by the vast majority of Bishops at the Lambeth Conference, but among American bishops it is not seen as a foregone conclusion. Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, said afterwards, that it would take time to absorb what the Archbishop was saying. “I don’t know whether there’s going to be a covenant,” he said.

The Archbishop argued that in urging the bishops to speak from the centre, this was not a middle-point between two extremes, “that just creates another sort of political alignment.

I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.”

He said that his plans for ”˜covenant’ and ”˜council’ was his vision for the way forward.

“By this I meant that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.

He warned that future divisions could be about changes on baptism, or the abandonment of the Nicene creed. Referring to proposals from the Windsor Continuation Group for a faith and order commission, and a Pastoral Forum, he said that such bodies should carry confidence and authority.

Two groups talking past each other. The vast majority have a genuine desire to stay together for for a small minority there are two different versions of what belonging together means. Two understandings of this thing we call Anglicanism. The vast majority want to take steps towards restoring Communion.

A smaller group – whose language of communion is based on feelings – what it means to me, what I can get from it. A transactional view of communion which is much more suited to a federation or fellowship of churches. The inexorable logic which is emerging out of this conference and which what Rowan appeared to be stressing this evening is of a core communion with strengthened structures and some who will not accept that. There will be continuing fellowship with those churches.

Rowan seemed to end up in that point. A major question is how we move towards that point – the highest degree of fellowship whilst allowing for an orderly separation. A challenge to all of us. -It’s clearly going to be difficult and messy in parts of North America especially the US. Canada I’ve found in the last 10 days is in a different place from the US. Vast majority of Canadian bishops have a real sense of communion

The implication of a covenant is that you have to have procedures for holding those who are separated and damaged. Equally if we are to end up with enriched relationships – some not fully accept – pastoral Forum to enable us to get there.

Carey/Hume procedures which enabled the problems that arose from the ordination of women to be eased – something like that but I don’t want to draw too close a parallel. We’re still on Tuesday – the Archbishops speech was received with sobriety, quiet muted conversation.

–This article appeared on page 1 of the Church of England Newspaper of August 1, 2008

It was an emotionally up and down day. The final verson of the “Reflections” came out and I was not only disappointed with its content, but also with the process. We had not been given a chance to review the last and most controversial section before it was printed up, and I felt that the process had not been done fairly. The trust that had built up over the past few weeks was rapidly evaporating for me. But after a wonderful final Bible study session and the chance to air my concerns in the final indaba group, I felt much better.

There will be a lot of questions as to “what came out of Lambeth?” I will be mulling this over in the next week or so, and will write more about it later, but it is probably easier to say what did NOT come out. First, no schism! Those who predicted that this would be the end of the Anglican Communion were dead wrong. Yes, there is a group (GAFCON) which has already left, but those of us remaining (about 85%) are committed to remaining together. The other thing did not come out was any kind of policy. There was no legislation done–only conversations were held. Finally, what will have to wait is a solution to the problems that beset us. There will be more meetings, more discussions. The American House of Bishop’s meeting in September will be important for us to digest the meeting and come to some understanding of how we will respond to the mood of Lambeth, especially as regards c the issues of moratoria and “Pastoral Forums” who could monitor our compliance with the Windsor Report. All this remains to be done, and no one should jump to any early conclusions!

As for what DID come out–There is above all a renewed scene of connectedness in mission. As one bishop said, “We are the product of the conference.” This new level of trust and respect and unity in Christ will serve us well in the years ahead.

Read it all. It is remarkable how many TEC bishops continue to misrepresent those they disagree with. GAFCON has not “already left” as was made clear at the GAFCON conference and in the concluding statement of the conference–KSH.