Check it out.

The Archbishop of Adelaide, Dr Philip Aspinall, said that he expected to see reluctance to sign up to the Covenant in every province.

“It will be difficult, I believe, in every province of the Anglican Communion for that province to make a decision to enter into the Covenant; because, at the heart of Anglicanism is the notion of autonomy, self-rule. And so province will guard that very jealously.

“It will only be as a result of deep and careful reflection that they agree to self-limit in order to protect something which is equally valuable, and that is our Communion.”

The chairman of the covenant drafting group, the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, dismissed the suggestion that few provinces had so far endorsed the Covenant. Many in the Global South, for example, had expressed their support verbally.

Read it all.

Bishops would stay in conversation with partners and seek each other’s counsel, especially of those who could be expected to disagree with them, when making decisions that may strain the bonds that hold the Anglican Communion together under “A Draft Rule of Life Covenant.” The document was submitted to the Windsor Continuation Group by two bishops from The Episcopal Church on July 31, according to an archbishop.

Read it all.

While the Anglican Communion has come of age, what holds it together is not structures, but rather fellowship and a shared cultural history. There is almost nothing that can force the “enlightened” North Americans, who see gay emancipation as a matter of historical justice, to coexist with developing-world evangelicals, for whom homosexuality is an abomination deplored by Scripture. As long as former colonials were taking their cue from the Church of England, the absence of structures was not fatal. But at the last Lambeth Conference, in 1998, concerned about the Church of England’s growing acceptance of homosexuality and what they saw as a betrayal of Scripture, a lobby of bishops from the developing world moved to “save the church” from the forces of secularism. They pushed through Resolution 1:10, which declared that homosexual practice was “incompatible with Scripture.”

This was precisely the kind of unambiguous statement of doctrinal clarity that Anglicanism has been at pains to avoid. Not only was it unacceptable to large numbers of Anglicans in the North; it could not be imposed, because Lambeth resolutions are not binding until they are accepted by member churches.

Resolution 1:10 emboldened the evangelicals to take a stand against the blessing of same-sex unions, authorized by a Canadian diocese in 2002, and against the acceptance of a noncelibate priest, Gene Robinson, as a bishop a year later by the Episcopal Church, in the United States. As Africans and Americans declared themselves out of communion with each other, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, struggled to establish firmer boundaries within the Anglican Church but without giving himself “papal powers,” as he put it to a journalist in Rome a few years ago. The 2004 Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion was an impressive attempt to introduce a more Catholic ecclesiology through covenants and a jus commune, but it was largely ignored.

Read it all.

Archbishop [Fred] Hiltz said “it’s very difficult” to predict what the outcome of the bishops’ conversations would be. The next two days, prior to the last day of the conference on Aug. 3, have been devoted to the discussion on the proposed Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process.

“There’s a huge amount of goodwill here on the part of people but there’s a pile of posturing that’s going on at this point,” he said. “My sense is that in spite of hearings and all that sort of thing, it feels to me like people are still talking past one another.” He said that while in his indaba group he found that people were “really trying hard to listen, to hear from whence the other person is coming from,” he did not experience “that same kind of respectful listening in the hearing process.”

He said that “people are trying hard to get along and to be respectful but I think the reality is that we’re in the closing few days of the conference and we’re dealing at this point with the most controversial thing in this conference.” He added: “People are feeling all kinds of pressure to have their own views heard, to save the communion, to keep it together. Others are under the pressure of saying they wouldn’t act until they consult with others. All the kind of expectations and pressures that people brought to the conference are now really coming into focus in these last few days. These are going to be challenging days.”

Read it all.

I am glad I came to this conference. It has given me a great opportunity to learn, listen to others, debate and share my views openly. It has been a great joy to meet many friends and to make new friends who love the Lord and are committed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ by word and deed. I have heard many inspiring stories from colleagues who put their lives at risk and suffer in order to stay faithful to God and His Church. I cannot describe the encouragement we received from, and the fellowship with, our ecumenical partners, especially the Coptic Orthodox. The conference has provided the Global South Bishops as well as other orthodox bishops from the UK, NZ, USA, Canada and Australia to meet and support each other. It has been a blessing to us all.

Archbishop Rowan and Jane Williams

warmly welcomed every one of us and worked very hard to encourage us to be united. We are deeply grateful to them and their hard working staff. I am committed to pray and support Archbishop Rowan because I know that he so much wants the present crisis in the Communion to be resolved.

The task is not easy!

While some very positive things are happening at the conference, the unresolved issues are still dividing the Communion. I can only wonder if during the coming two days we will truly be able to do something about these unresolved issues. I have some doubts but I would have loved to go back to my people with good news of progress towards truly resolving our crisis and that we still all continue to uphold the mind of the Church as exprsesed in the Lambeth ’98 Resolution 1;10 which reaffirmed the historic teaching of the Church .
From my experience of the Bible studies and of the Indaba discussions I see a great wall being put up by revisionists against those orthodox who believe in the authority of Scripture. The revisionists among us push upon us the view that current secular culture and not the Bible should shape our mission and morals. In this we are not divided by mere trivialities, or issues on the periphery of faith but on essentials. I am shocked to say that we are finding it very hard to come together on even the essentials of the faith we once received from the Apostles.

Everywhere we go here, we meet gay & lesbian activists, receive their news letters or read about their many events. Many seem to be supported by North American churches. They are intent to push their agenda on us. No other lobbying groups seem to enjoy similar access, or to be able to have their literature prominently displayed all over the campus and at the entrance to every residence. They are determined that their way is the only right way and that everyone else should follow. They are not at all open to listening to us or the historic church teaching. Yet, is surprising that they push all these sexuality issues so intensively into the conference and then blame us for talking about them too much! In the attitude of some from the North American churches I am reminded of the arrogance of the American administration that made a mess in Iraq because it refused to listen to millions of voices from the wider world.

Through the advocacy of unscriptural practices, I would say they are inviting the church into a new form of slavery: a slavery to modern secular culture and to immoral desires and lusts. Simply because people feel desires to do certain things, or, to live in certain ways, has never before, of itself, meant that the Church should bless them in doing so.

Some say that same sex unions that are faithful relationships are alright. But I feel we cannot be truly faithful to each other unless we are faithful to God and his purpose made clear in the creation of man and woman for each other. We cannot endorse an inadequate subsitute, that is not open to the transmission of life.

The scientific literature (which as a medical doctor I have taken trouble to review) does not support the conclusion that the experience of same sex desires is in fact fixed or determined by genetics or otherwise “hard wired” into people.

The church must offer a welcome to all and offer every loving support, but this does not mean it must endorse whatever temptations and lifestyles people desire. The church must uphold its moral teaching and call society to account: this is the true nature of its prophetic witness to the world.

I was shocked to hear a lady bishop saying we should not preach the Gospel but work only for social justice. Ultimately, there can never be full social justice without the Gospel. Mankind needs the salvation that only Jesus Christ can provide. The world needs redemption not simply secular improvements! Economic development is good but it cannot replace salvation.

Is there a way ahead?

Healing requires sometimes the taking of unpleasant medicine or surgical intervention. Healing of our wounded Communion requires hard decisions.

I was greatly encouraged by the truthful and realistic assessment made by The Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) about the situation of the Communion. Their recommendation of retrospective moratoria on the blessing of same sex unions, the ordination of active gay and lesbian people and upon interventions across boundaries are indeed the only way forward to mend the torn fabric of the Communion. Their proposal of “A pastoral Forum” if fully implemented, could protect the orthodox within TEC. These recommendations will help to stop further splits and will put an end to interventions. The big question is: will the Episcopal Church in North Armerica (TEC) accept these recommendations? Will TEC recognise the importance of mutual submission?

The Covenant

This is a way ahead that could prevent future crises. It can enhance our interdependence in essentials while also preserving our appropriate administrative autonomy and local identities. Some TEC bishops resist the idea of the covenant as they see it as punitive and limiting of their sense of control. They think that it will restrict them from responding to the needs of their culture which they feel should have priority. But sadly, it must be asked, if they are not willing to abide by the mind of the church why do they say the Communion is important to them? If TEC and Canada do not accept the Covenant recommend­ations they will leave the wider Communion with the one option that was recommended by the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salam Primates’ Meeting. This was for them to withdraw from internationalAnglican Councils and bodies. This will create a safe distance for them to consider their priorities, while also allowing the wider communion to move forward with its shared priorities and mission and to clear away the mess created by the current crisis.

It is my prayer, as we gather here in Canterbury in the historic See of St Augustine, that we will yet unite in mutual submission under God and be thus freed to carry forward the message of salvation in Jesus Christ to the waiting world that is so much in need of it.

Jesus said unto him, I am the way the truth and the life,
no one comes unto the Father but my me. John 14, 6

(Please note that these are my own personal views and I am aware that my colleagues in the other dioceses of the province of Jerusalem and the Middle East may have different views.)

Bible Study was John 13:31-14:17. We very dutifully did the first question, “How has John’s radical paradox, that God’s glory is most visible at moments of apparent weakness and vulnerability, been part of your church’s story?” There were some profound examples. However the Indaba coming up would be “The Bishop and Human Sexuality”. We agreed that it would be easier to speak among ourselves about our views than in the bigger group of 40 people. As you might expect, among the nine of us there was the usual range of views on sexuality, but there was no bitterness or any accusations. There was agreement that spreading of misinformation had caused damage to the Communion. Campaigns on behalf of one party or another were not appreciated by anyone and mainly create backlash. (There is a constant barrage of information on Gay and Lesbian people here including a demonstration as we exited from the hearing on the Scripture.)

The Indaba Group was also very honest. The biggest concern is about the ordination of actively homosexual people, with the blessings of same sex couples a long way behind. It is clear that sexual sins (which were listed by many to include divorce, promiscuity, adultery, same sex unions) are far more important to people than any other sins (like violence within family, greed, unethical business practice)….

Read it all.

I had a jolt of recognition of my own cultural captivity the other day. We have been provided with headsets for the purposes of listening to translations of the eight languages of the Conference. I have routinely left my headset in my room. I simply assume that most of what will be said on any given day will be in English. But, in one of our plenary sessions, I missed several speeches by bishops who spoke in their first language, not English.

I am struck by how that habit of thought may be seen as part of the problem: that we Americans think that the rest of the world is here to serve us; to speak our language; to do things our way; to conform to our norms and assumptions. I am afraid that this is the message that many in the Anglican Communion have also received from our Church.

I am told that we bishops of The Episcopal Church represent 22% of the bishops present at this Conference. I am glad and grateful that we are here and I hope and pray that our contributions have made a positive difference to this gathering. But our beloved Church is only two million out of the 70+ million member Communion. Can we speak softly and listen more carefully and act more respectfully than we are perceived to have acted in the past? Will we come away from Lambeth more deeply committed to that sturdy formula of “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”? I certainly hope so.

Read it all.

Listen to it all.

Those who have been supporting the process of Bible Study followed by an Indaba were vindicated this morning. I sat, listened and contributed as one of 40 bishops engaging with issues in human sexuality. As far as I could tell, everyone was able to make a contribution and the challenges facing us were clarified. There was no ”˜grandstanding’ and people were able to make their contribution without having to run the gauntlet of a plenary of 660 bishops – which would have ensured that only a minority were heard.

In my Indaba, one thing about which there was unanimity was that our attitude to homosexual people must be positive, generous and full of Christian love. There, however, the unanimity ended. In my Bible Study group there had been a recognition that we are each trying to be faithful to God and to our understanding of the nature and authority of scripture. By the time we came to the Indaba I detected the underlying presumption that a ”˜real Christian’ is essentially fundamentalist when it comes to using the Bible.

Read it all.

What is the timetable for this document? This is a very important question. Bishops will make comments here through their own notes and the Indaba groups. They will suggest ways that the document needs to be expanded or wording reworked. But, they are not free to change the document.

Also included in the notes for this meeting is a response paper sent to each of the bishops who are not here. The paper gives each bishop the chance to read the document and comment on it. This was stated as crucial because it must reflect the voice of the whole Communion. All of these notes will go to the Covenant writing group, meeting again in Singapore in September, 08.

It is anticipated that a tweaked draft will be produced in Singapore. This draft will be sent to every province; each province will state 1) what they will require to sign onto the covenant and 2) make suggestions for the document and 3) give an answer to the question: is your province willing to give in principle, agreement to this draft of the Covenant? These answers are required by the end of March 2009.

In May 2009, the Covenant will go to the next scheduled meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, which has representatives from each of the 44 churches and 38 provinces in attendance. They meet every three years and will debate the Covenant, giving it a thumbs-up or thumbs down vote. If enough (read overwhelmingly good number of) provinces agree that the covenant should be moved forward, it will be. Likewise, it can be killed at this meeting. It is unknown what will happen should it go down.

If it is moved forward, it will require special handling to reach the floor of the General Convention in Anaheim, July 8-17, 2009.

Read it all.

Dr. Lilico sees most clearly what I think all the fuss and bother at Lambeth about sexuality— now we’ll discuss it, now we won’t—is obscuring: the Church of England is coming apart right under Archbishop Rowan’s nose. The refusal of General Synod to make continued provision for its Anglo-Catholic wing means that they will not be able to stay in the same Church with women bishops: they regard the latter as an invalidation of the historical apostolic succession. The evangelicals, meanwhile, will not tolerate the election of practicing homosexuals to the episcopate in clear violation of Scripture, as I explain in this post; with the Anglo-Catholics gone, there will be no means of halting the inexorable trend that begins, as TEC has seen, with the ordination of women, and the Church of England will have at least one openly gay bishop before Lambeth convenes again. Dr. Lilico foresees a two-thirds reduction in the number of CoE priests when these two groups take their leave. At the same time, however, he does not predict that the separate groups will fall out of Communion with each other, but will remain as “sister churches”—because of the incredible complexities of property ownership going back to medieval times. (He also believes that the departing evangelicals and the Anglo-Catholics will maintain their present alliance. I am more skeptical that they will both make the break at the same time, and so think that they will end up separate because they will break off that way.)

As for The Episcopal Church, does anyone doubt that it will be a return to business as usual once the September meeting of the House of Bishops convenes? Will our bishops’ experiences at Lambeth cause them to change course, to drop the phony deposition threat against Bishop Duncan, and to work with him, San Joaquin and Virginia on a way to end all the litigation? I have seen nothing from the remarks of our Presiding Bishop thus far to indicate that. Thus if the bishops “depose” Bishop Duncan in September, the Diocese of Pittsburgh will follow the Diocese of San Joaquin out of The Episcopal Church, and the Dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy will leave shortly after that. There will then be enough of a critical mass to organize a new North American province for those who have left TEC.

Read it all.

Today was the day the media had been waiting for. The bishops were going to talk about human sexuality. First though came bible study on the passage “I am the way, the truth and the life.” As has been true since we began we had a wide ranging discussion about this text which inevitably took in the question of sexuality. As was the case later in the day in the Indaba session, conversation was intense but offered in a sense of trust and against the Background that all want the Communion to hold together. We now await the text from the reflections group who will attempt to find the appropriate words to describe our thoughts. Key for me was the tone of the conversation which was respectful and honest. No punches were pulled and everyone was heard.. If I had not known it before I now am aware of the impact that actions in North America have in the areas of evangelism and mission in many parts of Africa. Equally they know that we (Canada) have been proceeding faithfully in accordance with our procedures and that as a national church we have not made a decision.

Read it all.

From Matt Kennedy the superscribe–read it all.

Over breakfast, Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Church of the Southern Cone, apologized for not contacting me before making incursions into the Diocese of San Diego. Over the past two years, Bishop Venables together with Bishop Frank Lyons of the same province, have made numerous episcopal visits to our diocese without my knowledge or consent. I was heartened by his apology and relieved to hear him say he had not received either of the two letters I had sent protesting these actions and outlining the harm they caused to the church here in San Diego. Previously, I had taken his silence to mean his actions were intentional.

In light of these new developments, I have proposed that we continue discussing how to mend the tear these incursions have caused in our diocese. I am in preliminary conversations with Richard Blackburn of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center as a possible mediator for these discussions. I’m delighted to say that Bishop Venables has agreed to consider such a plan and we will be meeting for breakfast tomorrow to discuss it further.

Read it all.

Read it carefully and read it all.

A member of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG) has stated that the body’s proposal for a “retrospective” moratorium on same-sex blessings means that dioceses such as Vancouver-based New Westminster “will be asked to reconsider and withdraw that right.”

The words “retrospective moratorium”, which has the potential to affect a number of Canadian dioceses, has caused confusion among Canadian bishops attending the decennial Lambeth Conference here. Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said this, along with other proposals put forward by the WCG, was a matter that the house of bishops and the Council of General Synod ”“ the church’s governing body between General Synods ”“ would have to discuss.

Bishop Victoria Matthews, a member of the WCG and bishop of the diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand, said with the retrospective moratorium, “it isn’t just from here on there will be no new ones”¦”

Read it all.

As the Lambeth Conference tackles the controversial issue of gay bishops, two Anglican leaders give their views.

The Rt Rev Stacey Sauls, Bishop of Lexington has been attending the conference; the Most Rev Benjamin Nzimbi, Archbishop of Kenya, has not.

Watch it all.

Many Third World bishops wanted the same sort of space and freedom that some of us in the West want. As one bishop stated it, due to his cultural context we Westerners simply cannot send in teams to video the witness of gay and lesbian African Anglicans and share that video with the Western world; it is an arrogance similar to us Westerners trying to mold every nation in the form of our own elected democracies. But this same bishop said that he had been to America and had requested to go to the house of partnered gay people, where he said his eyes had been opened to the cultural and missiological context of the West.

Another bishop said that he wanted to go home with the trust of his fellow bishops, the trust that he could make the appropriate decisions in his own setting. I was a bit more specific. I asked to be able to go home with the Communion’s understanding that the Episcopal Church and I as one of its bishops can make pastoral and leadership decisions in our own church on a case by base basis as we try to see the risen Christ reflected in the individual faces and circumstances of the people in our pews and members of the clergy. The shaking of heads around the room indicated that some concurred and some did not.

It may be that one old assumption that turned out to be wrong is that in some sense the Church of England was and would continue to be the hub for the Communion. That model may be breaking down, and a wheel with some new set of spokes and connectors might emerge. Or perhaps a totally new image will find its place as a way to describe how we are connected. The archbishop’s attempt to strengthen the hub may turn out to be an old solution to a new problem that requires a different architecture.

Read it all.

One American traditionalist, Bp. Peter Beckwith of Springfield, IL, has recently characterized his dealings with The Episcopal Church (TEC) as “inter-faith relations”. This sound-byte conveys the deep sense among American traditionalists that, in the American Church at least, the notion that the innovators share with them the common ground of standing under Scripture is illusory.

While innovators may speak of broad themes which are indeed Scriptural, such as “justice”, for instance, they do not seem to traditionalists to take such words to mean what they mean in Scripture and the Tradition. And indeed TEC innovators are actively involved in initiatives which in traditionalists’ eyes seem to amount to reducing “religion” to what all religions hold in common. In consequence, that which is specifically Christian appears to be treated as simply part of the way in which “religion” has worked itself out in our particular culture; and it likewise seems that anything contrary to “religion”, anything, for instance, which might seem to divide or engender conflict, must be dropped.

Traditionalists in North America, too, seem to have gone farther than the Archbishop seems to recognize. Over the years they have perceived the innovators as saying one thing, but either not acting on it or going back on it. As the innovators’ perceived control of church structures and attacks upon their number have increased, traditionalists have developed alternative structures in conjunction with traditionalist leaders and provinces in the wider Communion. Not only individuals, but congregations and dioceses have decamped, or seem poised to do so. Their alienation, not only from TEC, but from a Communion which has proved unable to protect them and its historic faith, is profound.

Traditionalists feel that they have been betrayed. And this is not true only in North America. At the beginning of July, the Church of England’s General Synod voted to proceed with the consecration of women as bishops in a way which not only denied traditionalists of the structural protections they consider necessary to the integrity of their position, but will strip them of some of the protections they presently have, such as the ministry of the Provincial Episcopal Visitors – protections they were promised would be permanent.

Words may be spoken of the “honored place” of traditionalists in the Communion and its churches: but actions have belied those words, destroying whatever trust was left. And while, as a member of the press, one has been very much on the fringes of this Conference, one must question whether the process of encounter and listening which has been at its heart could suffice to restore that trust.

Read it all.

As he sat on the grass tucking into his burger, Bishop Bruce Caldwell, of Wyoming, told The Times that the discussion had been polite. “We passed an umbrella to the person speaking. We heard from people we hadn’t heard from before. It was more respectful than in 1998 when hard words were said that caused problems for gay and lesbian people.”

The Lambeth Conference of 1998 published a covenant taking a strong stand against homosexual practice. Since then the Episcopal Church in America has ordained the first openly gay bishop, the Right Rev Gene Robinson.

But what was decided upon on the pivotal day of the 2008 Lambeth conference yesterday?

Well, not a lot. This year is unique and there will be no resolutions, only reflections.

Bishop John Hiromichi Kato, from Japan, said: “Sexuality is too big an issue to decide at something like this.” Bishop Ismail Gibreil Abudigin from Sudan said that it had been good to talk about the “dilemma” of homosexuality. But he said that nothing had been decided as a result. “The majority think it [homosexuality] is an abnormality. I agree with that view.”

Read it all.

Read it carefully and read it all.

Is it possible that relationships among members of the Communion would actually improve if the Communion did not exist? That is what I am starting to wonder.

-Jim Naughton

In his second Presidential address this week, Archbishop Rowan Williams pleaded for Lambeth participants to

at least ask the question : ”˜Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

So: which of the nonparticipant leaders has taken the most “generous initiative” to help the communion, Martyn Minns who has stayed away as requested and been very quiet and self restrained, or Gene Robinson who has come to Lambeth to be on the outskirts of the conference, and where he has received more media attention than almost all Lambeth bishops who are at the actual event itself? KSH.

I will consider posting comments on this article submitted first by email to Kendall’s E-mail: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

IN LIEU of any other indicators, the “preliminary observations” of the Windsor Continuation Group were seized on on Monday as a sign of how the Anglican Communion might patch up its divisions.

The group, chaired by the former Primate in Jerusalem & the Middle East, the Rt Revd Clive Handford, calls for moratoriums on blessings for same-sex unions; on the consecration of anyone living in an openly gay relationship; and on any cross-border acts and interprovincial claims of jurisdiction.

It also recommends the swift formation of a “pastoral forum” at Communion level to engage “theologically and practically” with divisive situations that might arise. It would be “a body that could respond quickly to pressure points in the Communion”, Bishop Handford said.

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 might be appropriate where any of the three moratoria were broken.”

Read it all.

All this has the ring of history, of the great debates of the past. Indeed, the Lambeth conferences in 1998 and 2008 are the only occasions I know of in which international Christian leaders have debated the contentious issue of homosexuality.

It seems unlikely there will be a compromise at Lambeth. Williams has proposed a “covenant” in which the provinces of the Anglican Communion agree to certain principles and a tighter discipline, but the bishops are not rushing to embrace it.

Williams sounded a hopeful note, appealing to “the heart of God out of which flows the impulse of an eternal generosity which creates and heals and promises.” It may be a hope that is only realized after Williams is entombed beside his honored predecessors.

Read it all.

Unlike many drearily pontificating prelates whom I have met over the years, Gene Robinson stands out as a charismatic figure in his own right. He is friendly, not aloof.

Small and neatly dressed, he speaks clearly and winningly in the language of every day discourse, not in heavy theological jargon. Unlike many other senior churchmen too, he does not duck hard questions which he constantly relates to his religious beliefs as a devout biblical-based Christian. If it was not for his sexual orientation, he would be regarded as a completely orthodox churchman.

When I interviewed him recently in Dublin on his way to Kent, where the conference is being held, he admitted that he was personally disappointed that he alone of the Anglican Communion’s 800 bishops had not been invited by Archbishop Williams to take part in the Lambeth talks.

However, he said that he understood that some of the more conservative national churches would have objected to his official presence. Indeed, almost a quarter of his fellow bishops have refused to attend the Lambeth proceedings and are on the brink of breaking away from mainstream Anglicanism. Bishop Robinson is no stranger to verbal abuse from his colleagues and congregation members.

Read it all.

The bishops are discussing the setting up of a Pastoral Forum to tackle disputes within the Anglican Communion; the proposals are due to be debated by the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica in May 2009. Cindy Kent asked the Archbishop whether people in the outside world wanted to see answers and solutions much earlier than that.

Dr Williams replied: ”˜They do, and that only works when you’ve got a highly centralised, highly organised top-down organisation where somebody like the Archbishop of Canterbury can just snap his fingers and say ”˜let it happen’

He admitted that he sometimes wished he was able to do that; but ”˜not very often.’

”˜But not a lot of the time because it’s not the church I belong to. And deeply frustrating as that is it is the price we pay for being decentralised.

”˜We’ve probably paid too heavy a price in the last few years for that and the question is can we just draw things together; can we have a more coherent way of operating can we have a bit of a better clearing house for our problems. But, as I say, we’re not the kind of organisation where a chief executive just says “do it”’.

The Archbishop admitted that this coming weekend was ”˜make or break’ for certain levels of the Communion and added: ”˜We’ve got to come out with something about our problems with some steer for the way forward; but that being said there remains the question how do the Christian relationships of understanding and co-operation that have been created here survive. And I think they will, whatever happens in the next few days. And it’s not as though I feel entirely cosy about the next few days – it’s going to be very hard work. But also I’m aware of the depth of what has already been achieved.’

Read it all.

Bishop Clive Handford, a former primate of Jerusalem and the Middle-east, struggles with describing how the working group he chairs is going to find a way to hold the Anglican Communion together.

This is hardly surprising, because there is much about the Anglican Communion that defies description. But Bishop Handford manfully struggled for suitable analogies in the sweltering briefing room at the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury.

The Windsor Continuation Group, which sounds like the team which renovated the Queen’s castle but is charged with finding a way to unite Anglicans, has produced some preliminary observations which propose a Pastoral Forum (again, perhaps a little rose garden where the Great Hall burned down) and a “safe space” where those who can’t accept openly homosexual bishops ”“ to take a completely hypothetical circumstance at random ”“ can find sanctuary, while remaining inside the Communion.

Read it all.

It is both a moral and pastoral responsibility to bring closure to a disciplinary issue for the sake of the flock. The nature, intensity and duration of the disciplinary response can be mitigated by various factors, but to fail to exercise them is a failure of pastoral leadership. Vicars of parishes know this only too well. There can be a lot of listening and pastoral understanding, but the continual viability of a community is dependent on the proper exercise of this moral and pastoral responsibility.

Dar es Salaam held the most promise. It was Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, speaking in one voice. Or at least, it appeared so initially. How has it been followed through? Kyrie Eleison, repeating the closing words of our dear Archbishop of Uganda’s latest public address. We can’t help but ask, “If that Statement did not do much, what will these WCG observations accomplish?”

We may need to retrace our steps ”“ back to Dar Es Salaam ”“ if there is any hope for healing.

Those who are quick to judge the Lambeth absentees need to know that these very same ones have worked tirelessly to heal the torn fabric these past five years. Leadership means sticking your necks out, being misunderstood and criticised, and this is the price which many of them have paid. Some have felt that they are now relegated to the category of those who ”˜are deeply exercised over matters which they have no control.’ And so, they stayed away. For the record, even the Province of Southeast Asia is not fully represented. A bishop and assistant bishop chose to absent themselves to protest that ”˜all is not well and it cannot be business as usual.’ After all, the ”˜impaired communion’ SEA Province Statement still stands.

In this context, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Second Presidential Address is deeply disappointing. Once again, the crisis is seen as a family squabble. Whatever the background whispers may be and personal insight one may have on the Archbishop of Cantebury’s real intentions (and I have deep admiration for his spiritual commitment, exemplary devotional life and theological wisdom), we can only respond to him based on his public communication and leadership actions.

Read it all.