Despite the yawning divide between the supporters and opponents of gay marriage, there may be common ground here. Consider this: Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution separate church and state? In most ancient societies, it appears that the institution of marriage was conceived by religious communities, not the state. Even the ancient Code of Hammurabi suggests this. For the western world, it is Genesis (not the Magna Carta) that first declared that for this cause a man “shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

The state’s interest in marriage derives from marriage’s obvious benefits to the broader society. Marriage creates more stable relationships and families, more financial security and a better environment for the rearing of children. All of these are desirable things in which the state has a legitimate interest. Thus, married couples must enter into a binding civil contract that can only be dissolved by order of the court. But again, these are merely civil concerns. They do not go to the heart of whether or not a marriage exists in the truest (i.e. religious) sense of the word. Even today, some religious communities such as Orthodox Jews require a religious document called a “get” in order to dissolve a marriage. A civil divorce, albeit legally required, is insufficient and will not enable the couple to remarry within traditional Jewish law.

Given the state’s legitimate, though limited, interest here, shouldn’t all couples ”” be they gay or straight ”” be given the same civil contract with all the attendant legal rights and obligations? After all, legally committed couples provide the same financial and familial stability, be they gay or straight. In short, everyone who wishes to marry could be given a civil union agreement from the state. Whether a couple goes on to have a wedding ceremony would be up to them and their church. But the thing that would be enforced (or dissolved) by the state would be the civil agreement.

Theologically, this puts marriage back where it belongs. Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction. Finally, this sort of arrangement would be much easier to handle administratively, as couples could simply go to the County Clerk’s office and sign their civil union agreements in a matter of minutes. Current practice strains the patience of the parties and blurs the church-state line. Couples must purchase their marriage license, take it to a minister, rabbi or other official recognized by the state who must then perform their ceremony, fill out the license and return it to the courthouse for filing.

Read it all.

But it is frankly not clear what we have achieved. The last few days have involved a drafting group in spending many hours trying to write a reflection paper on the conference for all the bishops to take home with them. It describes our discussions and concerns in some detail. But on the big issues around how we hold things together in the future there isn’t yet clarity. This conference has passed no resolutions and issued no generally agreed statements. It is therefore uncertain as to what is the mind of the conference on some of the most difficult issues. Today we shall see the final version of the document which reports the conference, but there has been no process by which the members of the conference can agree the text!

So where do we go from here? I shall think about that in the next few days. I shall want to give an account of the conference to the diocese and to think through the implications of it for our overseas links. I shall also want to think about my own work as a bishop and how that has been enriched by all this. And I shall want to reflect of the design of this conference, because although it has been a rich experience it has not empowered the members to get their voice heard and to feel that the future direction of the Communion has been clarified.

Read it all

I was reading with interest your Lambeth weblog (to which I had been directed by the weblog of Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the diocese of South Carolina), and found that on Day 18, where some marvelous and encouraging steps toward consensus and agreement had been made regarding the proposed moratoria, that in your indaba group also:

“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”.

I am sorry to tell you that you have apparently been lied to.

I would direct your attention to this summary document:

http://anglicandistrictofvirginia.org/content/view/79/41/

which discusses (albeit in a press release on behalf of the eleven parishes being sued by the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church) the facts of the case(s) and the determination of the court on two occasions. Perhaps the most pertinent bit of information from that is its first sentence:

“The 11 churches sued by The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia celebrated today’s Fairfax County Circuit Court ruling that confirms the constitutionality of Virginia Division Statute (Virginia Code § 57-9). The 11 churches named in the lawsuit are members of the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV).”

On the website on which that background document is found, you will also find links (in the right-hand margin) to many of the associated court documents. Major newspapers in the adjoining regions, including the Washington Post (Washington, DC), the Washington Times (Washington, DC), and the Richmond Times Dispatch (Richmond, VA) have carried numerous articles as well as editorials concerning the cases, which are widely accessible via the internet. I am sure that you will be able to locate these with no trouble but if you would like I could certainly find some of them and send links to them along to you. It is likely that additional articles will appear in those and other newspapers, as the case will likely be appealed by TEC (and, unfortunately, the diocese). Some of the sadder details of the story can be discovered by reading a few of the introductory documents, including the fact that TEC intervened in and demanded an end to the process of amicable negotiation being followed by the diocese with the parishes, shortly after the investiture of K. Jefferts-Schori.

It is unfortunate that various officeholders in TEC persist in spreading untruths about the basic facts involved in these cases.

I am sorry that they attempted to deceive you, and hope that this will be of help to you in assessing their dependability in various of their other claims and statements.

Please do feel free to contact me regarding this.

Thanks to blog reader LINC for passing this long. It is really very sad to see this kind of misinformation being spread by the same TEC leaders who themselves complain of misinformation! Let me say it again–be a Berean (do you know the reference). Make sure to check the documentation carefully yourself–KSH.

On the day after the conference, Diocese of California Bishop Marc Andrus described as “profound and generous” Williams’ suggestion in his final presidential address that “there will be some who cannot abide by these moratoria, and in this they signal that there are steps to deeper unity they cannot take; or it may be that they conceive of deeper unity in other ways.”

Andrus said California would not abide by the moratorium on same-sex blessings but that he takes it “as incumbent on me and on us in the diocese to actively labor to both understand the position of those to whom that moratorium is important, and to convey the reality of our life together to the world.”

Andrus echoed others’ reactions when he noted that “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,” he wrote.

On August 3, Integrity USA’s Susan Russell warned of a similar tendency, urging bishops to “resist the temptation of those who will try to turn this descriptive document into a proscriptive edict.”

Read it all.

The archbishop believes time might bring enlightenment, and his job is to stop the confrontationists of both sides forcing a division first. He has some eminent critics – including the Bishop of Winchester and, it is reported, the Bishop of Durham – who feel the avoidance of confrontation this past fortnight has merely set up a worse confrontation in the future. But peacekeeping is an inexact art. The danger of playing it long is that some might walk away from the process. Play it short, and some definitely will. History may say the rift had already opened before the bishops even arrived at Canterbury: after all, 230 of them stayed away. But Dr Williams has probably held off official schism for his tenure in office. His Lambeth Conference – only a decennial event – was not a complete failure. The liberals may feel the price was too high, but sometimes for peacekeepers, a fudge is as good as a success.

Read it all.

“And, may I just add, that I agree with Archbishop Rowan (and others) when he says that “the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance.” To that, I would also add quality education, adequate health services, and freedom from the power of sin and oppression by demonic spirits. We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality ”“ despite the imbalance portrayed by the press.

“But, what we in the Global South have strongly maintained is this: When you are known to be the “Gay Church” and a church that can’t discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can “agree to disagree” about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis. It is not enough to be able to say that the official position of the Anglican Communion is Lambeth 1.10, because the lack of enforcement of that resolution seems to, in fact, render it null and void.

“The crisis in the Communion is about authority ”“ biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority. Regrettably, all the proposals coming out of the Windsor Continuation Group have been tried in the past five years and failed. However, even before we begin a re-examination of the Instruments of Communion and, in particular, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we do have within our structures the ability to bring order out of the present chaos. Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury missed his biggest window of opportunity. If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.

Read it all.

Our loss of this vision is clouding our ecumenical efforts with the Catholic Church of both East and West and they are now quite confused as to who they are to speak with now as a result of our recent decisions and indecision. Is the Anglican Communion Catholic or Protestant. Cardinal Kasper writes about our confusing decisions to further cloud the answer to this question.

As I stated when addressing the Church of England’s House of Bishops in 2006, for us this decision to ordain women implies a turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium, that is, not only the Catholic Church but also the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox churches. We would see the Anglican Communion as moving a considerable distance closer to the side of the Protestant churches of the 16th century, and to a position they adopted only during the second half of the 20th century.

Since it is currently the situation that 28 Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood, and while only 4 provinces have ordained women to the episcopate, an additional 13 provinces have passed legislation authorising women bishops, the Catholic Church must now take account of the reality that the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is not only a matter of isolated provinces, but that this is increasingly the stance of the Communion. It will continue to have bishops, as set forth in the Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888); but as with bishops within some Protestant churches, the older churches of East and West will recognise therein much less of what they understand to be the character and ministry of the bishop in the sense understood by the early church and continuing through the ages.

I have already addressed the ecclesiological problem when bishops do not recognize other’s episcopal ordination within the one and same church, now I must be clear about the new situation which has been created in our ecumenical relations. While our dialogue has led to significant agreement on the understanding of ministry, the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican Orders by the Catholic Church.

Who does Rome talk to now? That is the question they are asking. The penultimate paragraph comes in Cardinal Kasper’s conclusion as the framework for taking a New Oxford Movement to the table where real conversations for ecumenical dialogue and visible unity can be discussed again with the utmost seriousness and trust that we all want the same thing–that we may all be one as He is one. It is not a secret that the goal and hopes of this movement will be full reunion with the Catholic Church where the people of this great land of England can look and see that the Church is one and come to believe. That is our mission and that is the goal of Christ’s call to spread his love, mercy, grace and glory throughout the world. His promise is that he will never leave us nor forsake us so we take up the plough and do not look back.

Read it all.

This morning a minor miracle takes place. Our Indaba group, drawn almost from every nation under heaven, agrees all but unanimously on the way ahead for the Anglican Communion. We agree to a moratorium on actively gay bishops, on same-sex blessings and incursions from other provinces until a Covenant can be drawn up.

We agree to a Pastoral Forum to advise the Archbishop of Canterbury and provide mediation for disputes between provinces or dioceses.

We make several suggestions for strengthening and improving the “Instruments of Communion” including the idea that a future Archbishop of Canterbury might be elected from across the world.

We should strengthen the teaching office and decision-making ability of the Lambeth Conference.

The constituencies of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting need sorting out; at present they are not representative and America dominates.

Forty-three out of forty-five bishops agree to the moratoria and the Pastoral Forum and the other two more or less cancel each other out. There is one bishop who says that this would be too hard for his gay and lesbian people and another who says that the American church must repent before we can restore fellowship.

Read it all.

You need to listen to it all, of special interest is the last segment which features a three way panel consisting of Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, Bishop Stacy Sauls of the Episcopal Church, and Bishop Clive Handford, former Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East and Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf, from the Windsor Continuation Group.

In his presidential address that marked the end of the conference in Canterbury, he told Anglican bishops that the “pieces are on the board” to resolve the wrangling over homosexuality. He advocated the concept of a “global Church of interdependent communities” but conceded that there was much work to do before Anglican difficulties over gays were overcome.

Dr Williams is pursuing a plan that will depend on three moratoriums being observed by liberals and conservatives at opposite poles of the divided church. The Episcopal Church, which consecrated the openly-gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, and the Anglican Church of Canada, where a diocese authorised same-sex blessings, must both guarantee to desist from any further such moves.

For Dr Williams’s strategy to work, conservative primates from Africa must also pledge a moratorium on consecrating cross-boundary bishops to minister to evangelical congregations in liberal dioceses.

Bishop Trevor Mwamba of Botswana, a favourite for the vacant post of Primate of Central Africa, said: “The conference has been excellent, I would even say it has been divinely inspired. There was a growing sense of oneness, a sense that we all have a lot in common. We have been transformed by the relationships we have formed.”

Read it all.

The BBC’s Robert Pigott says this would be “some sort of statement of shared beliefs and a more-or-less binding agreement to stick to them”.

Our correspondent said there were signs of support for a long-term strategy to prevent further disintegration, but that the issue had brought the Church to the “brink of a permanent split”.

“It seems that a number of groups of clergy have voted for a ban on gay bishops and church blessings for homosexual couples, as part of a long-term plan to preserve at least the core of the Communion,” he said.

One suggestion from the group working on a potential Covenant has been for churches departing from tradition to have “diminished status” within the Communion.

Such an arrangement would result in a two-tier Communion but no church would be expelled.

Read it all.

The Plenary began with what you would expect: Reflections on the Spouses Program, then brief responses from two of the ecumenical participants. These were surprisingly stirring, particularly Metropolitan Kallistos words. “Your questions” he said, “are our questions, or if they are not already they will be. The double headed eagle is one of our symbols. Not the double headed ostrich! I ask two questions of your time: Did they clearly proclaim Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of the world? And did the bishops uphold marriage and the sanctity of the family? How should I answer? To the first question, Yes, Christ was proclaimed as Lord. There was the uniqueness of the incarnation. To the second question I’m still wondering. Where is there a plain statement of the sanctity of marriage? What about Lambeth 1.10? Does not Truth matter more than outward unity?” Here were profound questions and observations posed by one of our ecumenical participants. Those with whom I was sitting were heartened””but of course they were theological conservatives.

This was followed by more appreciations and introductions, and then came, Archbishop Rowan Williams’ Third Presidential Address. I thought it was brilliant. A clear and bold affirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and of a unity that is inseparable from the Truth. He was not forcing others to conform but he was strongly urging us toward a covenanted future, possibly making of us more of a Church. Very importantly he added his weight to Lambeth 1.10 and the moratoria””no same-sex blessings, no consecration of active gay bishops, no diocesan incursions. All of which I can abide by. Likewise I was encouraged by his vision of a global church with international commitments; not merely as a colonial relic, but as a global communion. I suppose I resonated with it because it is where my thoughts have been for so long. It is the only viable and godly way through our present problems””which, I might add, I see as things God has allowed both to judge and move us towards greater faithfulness in this new and challenging century.

Several things towards the end of his address I found particularly intriguing. He acknowledged, at Lambeth ’08, we have not overcome our problems, (which as obvious as it is, I’m grateful it was acknowledged). Nor have we established new structures, (that, however, was done by GAFCON therein dramatically reframing the landscape). Before the ACC’s meeting next May he will call a Primates Meeting early in 2009. (Thank God!). He affirmed the Pastoral Forum recommended by the Windsor Continuation Group; (Windsor is not dead); and he held out an olive branch towards GAFCON, (A crucial and gracious overture at the conclusion of Lambeth). Unlike some conservatives I’ve spoken to, I see these as anything but timid or insignificant developments. Frankly, as I heard them within the framework of my morning meditation, I was personally heartened, not because it solves any of our local or provincial problems in TEC. Unfortunately that is one thing it doesn’t do, at least immediately. That is, will the Episcopal Church hear the call for restraint? As the Sudanese say, “Let us go and see.” I’ve come to see so many of these challenges in a more global perspective.

Read it carefully and read it all.

For me, as an Orthodox, coming to the Lambeth Conference is an opportunity to do precisely that ”“ to share in your joys and your sorrows.

But, even more, I will go a further step and say that the questions that you are considering are also questions that are of concern to us. And if they are not particularly on our immediate agenda now, yet they are questions that we will need to consider increasingly in the future. So, yes, you have much here to discuss as Anglicans – specifically Anglican problems. But I see them also as questions that are posed to us Orthodox. For example, the question of women priests and bishops. Most Orthodox would say, we should not ordain women. But if you ask them why not, they will say that it has never been done; they will appeal to tradition. But you press them a little farther, and say that there must be a reason why women have never been ordained as priests. The argument from tradition merely tells you that they have never been ordained as priests, but it does not tell you why. Surely there must be some theological reason. On the one hand, the Orthodox are certain and clear in their answer. Most of us would say, no, we could not ever ordain women. Yet others would say, it is for us essentially an open question. We are not proposing to do so in the near future, but we need to reflect more deeply on it. If all we say is, “impossible, never,” we perhaps should ask ourselves, what are the implications for our understanding of human nature , of the difference between male and female, for our understanding of the priesthood and the relationship of the priest to Christ. That is an example of how your questions are perhaps to some extent also our questions.

Then again the issue that is coming up very much here at Lambeth: the possibility of blessing homosexual relationships. The Orthodox Church would answer, no, this cannot be done ”“ that sexuality is a gift from God, to be used within marriage, and by marriage we mean the union of one man and one woman. But it’s quite clear in the modern world ”“ and the Orthodox also belong to the modern world ”“ that the whole issue of the meaning of human sexuality is going to be more and more explored. And if we are to interpret this traditional teaching to our people, we need to reflect deeply on the basic principles.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury blamed liberal North American churches yesterday for causing turmoil in the Anglican communion by blessing same-sex unions and consecrating gay clergy as he attempted to chart a way out of the crisis that has been engulfing the church.

On the final day of the Lambeth conference, a 10-yearly gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops, Rowan Williams said practices in certain US and Canadian dioceses were threatening the unity of the Anglican communion.

“If North American churches do not accept the need for a moratoria [on same sex blessings and the consecration of gay clergy] we are no further forward. We continue to be in grave peril,” he said.

He was speaking as 670 bishops prepared to leave the University of Kent campus after 18 days of reflection, prayers, conversations and efforts to hold a divided communion together.

Read it all.

While much attention has been given to how the world’s Anglican bishops, who gathered here for their once-a-decade conference, have sought ways of mending relationships fractured by deep divisions over homosexuality, there were a host of other life and death global issues that preoccupied them.

The 670 bishops ended their Lambeth Conference here with a 42-page document, entitled Reflections, which they called a “narrative” that seeks to “describe our lived experiences and the open and honest discussions we have had together”¦”

In it, aside from addressing issues around human sexuality and unity, the bishops expressed their views on ecumenism, human and social justice, the environment, relations with other world religions, strengthening Anglican identity, and issued statements of solidarity to people around the world who are in situations of conflict.

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said that the conference had, as a whole, been “consistent” with the theme of equipping bishops as leaders in mission. “The mission of the church in the world was a really major focus, particularly in the first half of the conference,” he said in an interview with the Anglican Journal. “We talked about everything from evangelism to our work with other churches to things like the Millennium Development Goals.” He said that the discussions that bishops had showed “a church very much engaged with the suffering and hope of the world.”

Read it all.

The Primates’ Council of GAFCON will wish to study the outcome of the Lambeth Conference carefully and consult with those they are leading. They are meeting towards the end of August and will make their response following that meeting.

We have been praying for the Lambeth conference and now that it has ended we look forward to talking with those who were there.

It seems it has fulfilled the desires of the Archbishop of Canterbury and we also look forward to hearing from him.

Our absence focussed minds on the problems within the communion and spoke louder than our presence would have. However, the issues which have caused such division are still before us and require decisive action so that the mission of the church will not be further impaired.”

He had drawn many a thousand of these rations in prisons and camps, and . . .he knew no way of standing up for his rights, he, like every other prisoner, had discovered long ago that honest weight was never to be found in the bread-cutting. There was short weight in every ration. The only point was how short. So every day you took a look to soothe your soul — today, maybe, they haven’t snitched any.”

— “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” 1962

Read them all.

Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the reclusive icon of the Russian intelligentsia and chronicler of communist repression, died Sunday. He was 89.

His son, Stephan Solzhenitsyn, told the Associated Press that his father died of heart failure in Moscow.

The soulful writer and spiritual father of Russia’s nationalist patriotic movement lived to be reunited with his beloved homeland after two decades of exile – only to be as distressed by communism’s damage to the Russian character as he was by his earlier forced estrangement from the land and people he loved.

Mr. Solzhenitsyn returned from his Vermont refuge to a dramatically changed Russia in 1994 but deemed it a moral ruin after a monthslong odyssey to become re-acquainted with the country that had denounced him as a traitor, stripped him of citizenship and expelled him in 1974.

Hailed as Russia’s greatest living writer, the author of more than two dozen books – in addition to commentaries, poems, plays and film scripts – won back his citizenship and the respect of his fellow Russians after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although his books were best-sellers in the West, only “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was published first in his homeland.

Read it all.

Despite 200 primates staying away because of the consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire Dr Rowan Williams took comfort from the conclusion of the proceedings yesterday.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Telegraph yesterday, the last Sunday of the decennial gathering of the worldwide Anglican church, Dr Rowan Williams evidently did not want to sound triumphalist.

“I’m content, I think,” he said. But surely he was elated? “Encouraged,” he replied carefully. “Elated is a very dangerous thing to say.” But if he’d been offered this Sunday two months ago, would he have taken it? A pause, then: “Yes, definitely…..

“I feel a great deal of what I hoped for has happened,” he said. “We’ve found that very slowly there’s a slightly different way of doing business. What we haven’t had is a very consistent counter-narrative flowing through the conference from people feeling disenfranchised.”

Read it all.

In the end, the 2008 Lambeth Conference will probably be remembered most for the bishop who was not in attendance but who nonetheless threatened to break apart the world’s third-largest church.

The once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops and archbishops, which ended Sunday, was dominated by disputes concerning V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican church, who was consecrated five years ago in New Hampshire.

In a news conference Sunday, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, urged bishops to halt further consecrations of gay bishops, pointing a finger specifically at the United States.

He said that certain dioceses in the American church continue “to put our relations as a communion under strain, and some problems won’t be resolved while those practices continue.”

Read it all.

In remarks to reporters, Archbishop Williams said little to clarify what the covenant might entail. But when he described the kind of church he saw emerging from future discussions, he spoke of a willingness to conform to agreed practices that sounded more disciplined than the Anglican Communion has been in recent times. “I hope that a little bit more mutual responsibility and accountability, a bit more willingness to walk in step, will make us more like a church,” he said.

In a remark that appeared directed at conservatives and liberals alike, he said Anglicans should work against “the tendency of local churches to get trapped in their local contexts” at the cost of shared spiritual ideals.

More pointedly, he appealed to “the North American churches” to stick to moratoriums on the ordination of openly gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions, saying their failure to do so would imperil the chances of broad agreement on the proposed covenant. And that, he said, would mean that “our communion will continue to be in great peril.”

Read it all.

The world’s Anglican bishops ended their decennial Lambeth Conference last night by declaring themselves in “wide agreement” on a moratorium on blessing homosexual unions despite a complaint by Canada’s Anglican primate that his church’s views on the issue had not been given an adequate hearing.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion, said the 650 bishops attending the conference in England were strongly in favour of avoiding a schism in the church – the world’s third-largest Christian body – over same-sex blessings and the consecration of bishops living in homosexual unions.

In addition to moratoria on same-sex blessings and gay bishops, he said the bishops also favoured the creation of a covenant on Anglican theological belief that almost certainly would impose limitations on homosexual inclusiveness.

Most Anglicans now live in the so-called global south – Africa, Asia and Latin America – and their leaders consider homosexuality a violation of God’s teaching. More than 200 bishops boycotted the conference over the issue.

Read it all.

2. We are consciously mindful of the absence of our fellow Episcopal colleagues from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and elsewhere, who, for principled reasons could not be present at this Lambeth Conference. We thank God for their costly faithfulness and vigilance. We acknowledge the issuing of the Jerusalem Declaration which deserves careful study and consideration. At the same time, we also stand in solidarity with all the faithful Bishops, Clergy and Laity in the United States and Canada and elsewhere who are suffering recrimination and hostility perpetrated upon them by their dioceses and/or national churches which have not unequivocally complied with the specific Windsor proposals required of them in full.

3. We rejoice that the fellowship of orthodox episcopal leaders continue to grow in maturity in common faith and witness. Early in the Conference we, some 200 bishops, were greatly blessed when we met at a special gathering on Jul 22 for fellowship and sharing, co-hosted by seventeen Global South Provinces. We were very encouraged by the presence of three Bishops of the Oriental Orthodox churches and for their words of encouragement and challenge to faithfulness. We were encouraged to learn and endorsed the reaffirmation of the “total and collegial commitment to the solemn vocation of the Global South” in the Statement of the Global South Primates Steering Committee Meeting on 13-15 March 2008. We are greatly inspired by and endorsed the Statement of the Sudanese Bishops to this Lambeth Conference on the ECS Position on Human Sexuality which was issued at great cost. The Final Report of the Global South Anglican Theological Formation and Education Task Force Anglican Catechism in Outline: A Common Home Between Us was also warmly received. Since the historic “Red Sea Encounter” of 2005, Global South provinces have moved forward in close fellowship and partnership in ministry and mission, in theological reflection and formation, and sharing of human, skills and material resources.

4. We gather at a critical time when the Anglican Communion as a communion of ordered churches is at the probable brink of collapse. We are encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s First Presidential Address, and the related presentations by the Anglican Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group to the Conference at the opening evening of the Conference. We expect all attending this Conference at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the words of his Advent 2007 Letter, to be willing and accepting “to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant”.

Read it all.

————
UPDATE:
Terry Wong, the administrator of the Global South Anglican blog asked us to let readers know this statement has been updated in several places and now includes a list of signatories among the Global South Primates.

Innovations to church teaching on homosexuality in North America caused roughly 280 of the 880 invited bishops of the Anglican Communion to boycott the Lambeth Conference. According to registration information provided to The Living Church and Church of England Newspaper, the total number of Anglican bishops who pre-registered was only 617, and not all of them were present. The two largest provinces ”“ Nigeria and Uganda ”“ did not send any bishops. There was one bishop registered from Rwanda and five from Kenya. Conference organizers included all of the ecumenical bishops in attendance to arrive at the total of 670 present when registration closed on July 21.

Many of the bishops who were absent and a number who did attend the Lambeth Conference attended the Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in June. GAFCON and the absence of more than 30 percent of the bishops of the Communion were frequently mentioned during the conference. The absence of so many bishops from the Global South increased the proportional representation of bishops from The Episcopal Church to nearly a quarter of the overall total.

For various reasons the conference will probably run a deficit of at least $2 million. A document titled “Lambeth Conference Finances” dated January 2008 estimated that the bishops’ conference would cost about $9 million with the spouses’ conference adding another $2.5 million. The document notes that more than 40 percent of conference participants would require some sort of financial assistance in order to pay the $8,000 conference fee. During the closing press conference Archbishop Williams said conference organizers were studying various ways to cover the probable shortfall.

Read it all.

Was anyone listening? That was our esteemed blog host Kendall Harmon’s question exactly five years ago:

[blockquote]Sunday, August 03, 2003
Posted 10:00 PM by kendall

The Voice from Nigeria at this morning’s sermon

“When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold,” said the Archbishop of Kaduna, the Most Rev Josiah Idown-Fearon.

“I want to plead with you not to sneeze too much because if you do we will all catch a very bad cold.”

Was anyone listening?[/blockquote]

— From Kendall’s lone blog entry from August 3, 2003 on his original blogspot blog. Kendall was blogging from the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in Minneapolis

One of the problems around this is that people in different parts of the world clearly define ”˜public’ and ”˜rights’ and ”˜blessing’ in rather different ways. I refer, I think, to the address I gave this afternoon. As soon as there is a liturgical form it gives the impression ”˜this has the church’s stamp on it.’ As soon as that happens you have moved to another level of apparent commitment, and that’s nowhere near where the church, the Anglican Communion generally is.

In the meeting of Primates at Gramado, in Brazil some years ago, the phrase ”˜a variety of pastoral response’ was used as an attempt to recognise that there were places where private prayers were said and, although there is a lot of unease about that, there wasn’t quite the same sense of feeling about that as about public liturgies.

But again, ”˜pastoral response’ has been interpreted very differently and there are those in the USA who would say ”˜Pastoral Response, well, it’s a blessing’ and I’m not very happy about that….

I am saying that the current policy, well, I wouldn’t say policy of the American church but some of the practices of dioceses, or certain dioceses, in the American church continues to put our relations as a communion under strain and some problems won’t be resolved while those practices continue.

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.

Read it all carefully–I consider it very important.

Australia’s most senior Anglican said a once-a-decade conference has given him hope the church can avoid splitting over the issue of homosexuality.

Australian primate Archbishop Phillip Aspinall said while there is no quick fix to the damaging row, the Lambeth Conference in south-eastern England has pointed the way forward.

“There is enormously strong commitment among the bishops present at Lambeth to stay together and that is a very positive outcome,” Dr Aspinall told ABC radio.

The meeting, which ended yesterday, has been overshadowed by a dispute about the consecration five years ago of the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in the United States.

Read it all.

I write on the Conference’s final day. There is a sense of exhaustion here, and a sense of frustration.

The Communion is in crisis. Its life and mission have been disrupted, both by the actions of its North American provinces and their effect in other provinces, and by the amount of time and energy which have been devoted to dealing with the resulting crisis, without success.

Indeed, this lack of progress has itself deepened the crisis, as provinces express frustration with the impotence of the Communion’s structures and leadership, the apparent failure of leaders and provinces to carry out decisions that seemed to have been agreed, and, at bottom, the sense that the Communion is no longer bound by its historic common understanding, its Reformed Catholic understanding, of the Faith. As a result, the bishops of Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda, as well as those serving the Diocese of Sydney in Australia and many individual bishops, decided to absent themselves from the Conference.

No one seems to be sure exactly how many bishops are here. The press have a list only of the last names and dioceses of those who wished to make their presence known. Bishops complain that they cannot locate other bishops, because (in contrast to earlier Conferences) they too have no list. The Conference’s official press spokesman puts the number of participants at about 650.

Neither does anyone seem sure exactly what is going on in the Conference as a whole. The press have been excluded from most sessions in order to ensure that the bishops can speak freely to one another, and be more free to alter their opinions, without fear of their words being posted to the world, and that is surely right. But the bishops themselves are segmented: they have had little structured opportunity to interact with people outside their 40-member indaba groups, apart from the hearings on specific proposals. As a result, they have little sense of the overall tenor of the Conference, much less, of where it is going. And if the draft of the Reflections document is any measure, it will do little to provide such a sense; the draft is more a summary of ideas and possibilities regarding the various topics, than a synthesis that articulates Lambeth’s vision for the identity and direction of the Communion.

Bishops on very different sides of the contentious issues have expressed a real sense of being manipulated and controlled; and though the indaba process has been enjoyed by many, there is a common feeling that it has been used to exclude the members of the Conference from the final decision-making.

Read it all.

The cardinal, he said, made it clear that because of the ordination of women “the status of the dialogue (between Catholics and Anglicans) will almost certainly change; nevertheless I rejoice in the cardinal’s opening paragraphs in which he speaks of his hope to remain in serious dialogue in search for full unity, so that the world may believe.”

“In spite of our apparently contradictory behavior,” Bishop Hill said, “Anglicans remain committed to the goal of full, visible unity.”

While telling the Anglicans that the Roman Catholic Church believes the ordination of women and the acceptance of homosexuality go against Scripture and tradition, Cardinal Kasper acknowledged that the Anglicans have acted out of a sincere desire to affirm the dignity of all people and to promote the full involvement of women in the life of the church.

Bishop Hill suggested that future Anglican-Catholic dialogues look at “the nature of the tradition of the faith down the ages.”

“I am sure the cardinal and I would agree that tradition must be in continuity with the apostolic faith in the deposit of the Scriptures, and also that tradition is nevertheless dynamic, led by the Spirit, and not mere historicism,” he said.

Read it all.