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.

You really need to take the time to listen to it all.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Fourteenth Lambeth Conference has come to an end. The “Reflections Paper” I described to you yesterday has been released (all 44 pages of it!), and the Archbishop of Canterbury has just concluded his Third and Final Presidential Address, stating unambiguously that Jesus Christ is, indeed, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” and that we find our unity in him.

Shortly the “Reflections Paper” will be available online (Anglican Communion web site, also the Episcopal News Service web site).

In our Indaba group this morning we discussed our discomfort at the thought that this Paper might be read as if it had the character and (moral) authority of the Reports and Resolutions of previous Lambeth Conferences. We drafted a brief Introductory Statement that we wish to be attached to the Paper. (Note: this is the Statement of OUR group of 40 Bishops, not that of the Conference as a whole.)

Nevertheless, if you download (or otherwise receive) the “Reflections Paper” it would be my hope, personally, that you read it in the light of the following Introduction:

“The statement which follows cannot hope to capture the mood and experience of the Lambeth Conference 2008.

“Cold words are inadequate to express the quality and passion of the journey we have shared. We have listened intently to one another, we have laughed together and wept together. We have discovered in our Bible Study and Indaba Groups the kind of friendship and fellowship which is life-changing.

“This statement represents a distillation of insights and opinions, not from a single group but from 16 Indaba Groups and it therefore takes the form of a patchwork which no editorial process can make seamless without creating a garment that never existed.

“In order to read this document with appreciation you must allow yourself to imagine that you are in a safe space with others whom you have come to love and whose opinions you have grown to respect at the deepest level. Only the reader can breathe love, humor, tears, admiration, urgency and imagination into this document so that it can truly live, and so that the experiences that gave it birth can be seen to have animated our renewed relationships.”

Again, my profound thanks to all of you for your prayerful support of the Bishops gathered here in Canterbury for the past three weeks.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

The spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans urged church leaders Sunday not to consecrate any other gay bishops for now, as he ended a once-a-decade Anglican assembly that was dedicated to preventing schism in the troubled fellowship.

In his final speech at the Lambeth Conference, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the Anglican Communion needs “space for study and free discussion without pressure” about whether to accept changes in the traditional biblical understanding of same-sex relationships.

“A fellow Christian may believe they have a profound fresh insight. They seek to persuade others about it. A healthy church gives space for such exchanges,” he told the 650 bishops at the meeting in Canterbury, England. “But the Christian with the new insight can’t claim straight away that this is now what the Church of God believes or intends.”

Read it all.

Bishop Lawrence criticized the existing Instruments of Communion of being too slow to adapt. “I witnessed a new birth last month [at GAFCON],” Bishop Lawrence said. “The Global South has come to its place of maturity. I don’t know how the two structures will work together in the future. Those who adapt the quickest will be the ones who win the day.”

Bishop Zavala challenged Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to state clearly to the rest of the Communion the intentions of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops.

“I don’t want to put words in her mouth,” he said. Bishop Zavala said the current crisis is rooted in The Episcopal Church’s decision to disregard Resolution 1.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference and consecrate a partnered homosexual person as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

“If there is no moratorium then the Communion will split,’ he said.

Read it all.

Rebecca Anne Binder, the daughter of Dr. Martha Connell and Dr. Jack Binder of Scarsdale, N.Y., was married on Saturday to Amanda Elizabeth Laws, the daughter of Oneida Méndez-Laws and the Rev. Thomas Laws of Montclair, N.J. Ms. Binder’s father, who was authorized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, officiated at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Charlestown, Mass., where Ms. Laws’s father, an Episcopal priest, participated in a blessing ceremony.

Read it all.

(ENS)

Many bishops came to this gathering in fear and trembling, expecting either a distasteful encounter between those of vastly different opinions, or the cold shoulder from those who disagree. The overwhelming reality has been just the opposite. We have prayed, cried, learned, and laughed together, and discovered something deeper about the body of Christ. We know more of the deeply faithful ministry of those in vastly differing contexts, and we have heard repeatedly of the life and death matters confronting vast swaths of the Communion: hunger, disease, lack of education and employment, climate change, war and violence. We have remembered that together we may be the largest network on the planet ”“ able to respond to those life and death issues if we tend to the links, connections, and bonds between us. We have not resolved the differences among us, but have seen the deep need to maintain relationships, even in the face of significant disagreement and discomfort. The Anglican Communion is suffering the birth pangs of something new, which none of us can yet fully appreciate or understand, yet we know that the Spirit continues to work in our midst. At the same time patience is being urged from many quarters, that all may more fully know the leading of the Spirit. God is faithful. May we be faithful as well.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate

The Episcopal Church

Read it carefully and read it all.

CANTERBURY, UK””In spite of extraordinary pressure to do otherwise, the Archbishop of Canterbury has managed to achieve his stated goal of a Lambeth Conference of reflection rather than resolutions. The long predicted coup d’état that was going to emerge from this Lambeth Conference and vote the Americans and Canadians out of the Anglican Communion failed to materialize. There is much to be grateful for in that.

In his July 29th presidential address, Rowan Williams clearly set the theological and biblical perspectives of those who embrace an inclusive gospel within the container of Anglican comprehensiveness. That in itself is a tremendous step forward for the Anglican Communion. It should signal that it is time for the conversations to cease about whether those who hold an inclusive perspective are still Anglicans””much less Christians. It is time to move on to how we, as a diverse community of faith, are going to move forward in God’s mission in spite of our differences.

The 43-page “Lambeth Indaba: Capturing Conversations and Reflections” provides a snapshot of the diversity of opinion and perspective held throughout the global communion and resists the temptation to offer””much less insist””on the means to reconcile the differences that challenge us. We call on our bishops to resist the temptation of those who will try to turn this descriptive document into a proscriptive edict.
This is particularly critical in the language around moratoria. The inclusion in this set of descriptions of the conversations in the bishops’ Indaba groups of the “desire to enforce a moratoria” on further consecrations of bishops who are gay or lesbian and on the blessing and celebration of same-sex unions is an accurate reflection of how some in the Anglican Communion would prefer we moved forward.

So is the reflection about “the positive effects in parts of [the Communion] when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment.”

And, while the Archbishop of Canterbury in his concluding address expressed his own preference for moratoria as a way forward, we are reminded that we are, as Anglicans, bound together in bonds of affection rather than authority. We believe we are called to find that way forward, not only within the bonds of affection to our Anglican siblings, but within the parameters of the polity and practice of an Episcopal Church forged in the crucible of the American Revolution.

With Lambeth Conference 2008 and the failed coup d’état behind us, Integrity calls on our bishops to lead us all forward in faith and in God’s mission: to bring good news to the poor, release to the captives, and to let the oppressed go free.

We challenge them to partner with the House of Deputies to break the cycle of being bullied into bigotry and distracted from mission and ministry by those who would exclude us because of our commitment to the full inclusion of all the baptized in the Body of Christ. We look forward to General Convention 2009 and the opportunities we will have there to move the church further forward on the journey toward full inclusion.

We pray that our bishops will build on the relationships they have developed here in Canterbury with bishops from around the Communion to enable the witness of the Good News of God in Christ Jesus made present in the lives, relationships and vocations of LGBT Episcopalians to be shared more widely throughout our Anglican family of faith. We stand ready to resource and support that work going forward.

We remind our bishops that we cannot live up to our baptismal vows to respect the dignity of every human being if we tell some of them that they are good enough to arrange our flowers, play our organs, direct our choirs, teach our Sunday Schools, and lead our worship””but not good enough to have their vocations affirmed and their relationships blessed. There is nothing “generous” about asking the LGBT faithful to bear the burden of unity of the Anglican Communion on their shoulders and there is no theological defense for sacrificing a minority of the baptized to the will of a majority.

We give thanks for the extraordinary privilege it has been to be part of the cloud of witnesses who have offered to this Lambeth Conference incarnational opportunities to engage with brother and sister Anglicans from all over the globe. We pray that our witness, along with our Inclusive Church Network allies, will continue to grow as we partner together to proclaim God’s justice and to live God’s love.

Finally, we recognize with deep regret that the exclusion of the Bishop of New Hampshire from this gathering of his peer bishops in the Church of God has sent a signal to LGBT people around the world that the Anglican Communion still considers them “strangers at the gate.” We commit ourselves to continue in the struggle until our church and our Communion live up to the high calling to be the Body of Christ in the world where all members are truly welcome, valued, loved, included, and challenged.

And this is emphatically not about forcing others to conform ; it is an agreement to identify those elements in each other’s lives that build trust and allow us to see each other as standing in the same Way and the same Truth, moving together in one direction and so able to enrich and support each other as fully as we can. What I am saying, in effect, is that every association of Christian individuals and groups makes some sort of ”˜covenant’ for the sake of mutual recognition, mutual gratitude and mutual learning.

Does this mean that we are all restricted by each other’s views and preferences, incapable of arguing or changing? It was a problem familiar to St Paul, and you have already, in this Conference, heard something of how he dealt with it. But let me try to say how this affects our current difficulties. A fellow-Christian may believe they have a profound fresh insight. They seek to persuade others about it. A healthy church gives space for such exchanges. But the Christian with the new insight can’t claim straight away that this is now what the Church of God believes or intends; and it quite rightly takes a long time before any novelty can begin to find a way into the public liturgy, even if it has been widely agreed. Confusion arises when what is claimed as a new discernment presents itself as carrying the Church’s authority.

And that’s why the pleas for continuing moratoria regarding certain new policies and practices have been uttered. Such pleas have found wide support across the range of views represented in the indaba groups. The Church in its wider life can’t be committed definitively by the judgment of some; but when a new thing is enshrined, in whatever way, in public order and ministry, it will look like a definitive commitment. The theological ground for a plea for moratoria is the need to avoid this confusion so that discernment continues together. The Resolution of Lambeth ’98 was an attempt to say both ”˜We need understanding and shared discernment on a hugely complex topic,’ and ”˜We as the bishops in council together are not persuaded that the new thoughts offered to us can be reconciled with our shared loyalty to Scripture.’ Perhaps we should read that Resolution – forgetting for a moment the bitterness and confusion around the debate and acknowledging that it remains where our Communion as a global community stands – as an attempt to define what a healthy Church might need – space for study and free discussion without pressure, pastoral patience and respect, unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from Scripture and tradition. And this is not by any means to say that a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf : the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding. To say that the would-be innovator must be heard gratefully and respectfully is simply to acknowledge the debt we always owe to those who ask unfamiliar questions, because they prompt us to explore our tradition more deeply.

It’s worth adding, too, that the call for a moratorium on interventions across provinces belongs in the same theological framework. Such interventions often imply that nothing within a province, no provision made or pastoral care offered, can be recognizably and adequately Christian; and this is a claim not lightly to be made by any Christian community regarding any other without grave breach of charity. And it seems to be widely agreed in this Conference that internal pastoral and liturgical care, strengthened by arrangements like the suggested Communion Partners initiative in the USA and the proposed Pastoral Forum we have been discussing, are the way we should go if we want to avoid further ecclesial confusion.

So I hope that, if part of the message of Lambeth ’08 is that we need to develop covenantal commitments, and that one aspect of this may be what you could call covenanted restraint, this will be seen in the context of a unity not enforced but given in Christ.

Read it all.

Anglican clergy from across the world gathered Sunday for the final day of the Lambeth Conference, held once in a decade, amid a bitter row about the topic of gays in the church.

The Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, southeastern England, is a key event for the worldwide Anglican Communion, which has around 77 million followers led by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

About 650 bishops and archbishops attended the 20-day event for intensive sessions of worship, study and conversation at the University of Kent campus.

Read it all.

Trying to do my share to help the environment, I set up a trash basket at my church and posted above it this suggestion: “Empty water bottles here.”

I should have been a little more specific, because when I went to check it out later, I didn’t find any bottles in it. It was full of water.

–Mahood Jawald of Dunbar, West Virginia in the July 2008 Reader’s Digest, page 194

One major aspect of the Lambeth Conference that seems to hardly get mentioned at all is the 540+ spouses who gather daily for their own conference.

Like the bishops, the spouses meet daily for worship, meals, plenary sessions, bible studies, and self-select sessions.

The team that put together the Spouses’ Conference, under the direction of Jane Williams, had a very difficult task. They had to build a conference for a group of people who appear to have very little in common other than having spouses with similar jobs. They are, among other things, mothers, wives, fathers, husbands, clergy, professionals, professors, seamstresses, and full time bishops’ wives.

While the bishops were discussing issues in the church, and learning about episcopal ministry and each other. There spouses were learning about world issues, each other, taking trips to different parts of England, making art, praying, and for many of them, being introduced to many of the issues facing the church. They had the opportunity to discuss struggles in being a bishop’s spouse. A few commented that it was good being able to see the work that was being done around the communion in person.

Read it all.

Please read widely from a variety of points of view and if something is asserted, check the documentation if you can to make sure it is accurate. Seek not to jump to conclusions.

And get ready for this: if the Conference goes as I have been concerned it might (and I defer judgment in any final sense until the end), one of the responses is going to be: see, people like that (ie people who are concerned) just do not understand, they are against–and then you fill in the blank–meeting face to face, group process, face to face encounter, the importance of understanding different contexts, the Archbishop of Canterbury personally, etc. It does not follow that if Lambeth 2008 failed to do the most important thing that nothing good in the process occurred, but it is the larger overall outcome that matters. The Windsor Report used the metaphor or image of sickness to describe the state of the Communion (when it was written, now it is worse). The central question remains did the conference contribute the helping the serious sickness of the Anglican Communion overall heal or did it do the opposite? KSH.

We were each invited to share something about context within which we address the issue of homosexuality. Our Indaba group did a good job of listening as each bishop responded. Still, I must note my deep disappointment that we are talking about gay and lesbian people rather than listening to them. I believe that Bishop Robinson’s exclusion from this Conference profoundly diminished this process.

We addressed challenging questions about the three moratoria. In the course of our discussion, our Bible study group agreed that it is not enough for the bishops and provinces to agree to observe moratoria. Just stopping certain activities is not enough. There is no life in that. We need to know “Why?” and “For how long?” The moratoria should be in the service of a larger project of coming to a shared understanding of the Scripture, of an exploration of theological anthropology and an articulation of sexual ethics. Only by clearing space for those wider discussions will the moratoria speak life rather than threaten death (to echo the Archbishop of Canterbury) to the Communion. We hope that the Conference final statement will spell this out.

We also did a line-by-line reading of the St. Andrew’s Draft of the proposed Covenant. There is broad support for the Covenant, but lots of concern and outright opposition to the Appendix.

Read it all–and I agree about the why and the how long. The Windsor report, by the way, answered the second question and pointed well on the way to the first.

Hat tip: Ruth Gledhill who notes that this video was made for Times Online by Joanna Clegg.

Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates misunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact “declared a ”˜moratorium on all such public Rites.’” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.

—Gene Robinson, telling the truth and affirming the very facts on the ground that Bishop George Packard is denying below

…any meaningful step in a constructive direction must include the North American church’s cessation of the practice which is precisely at issue in debate. Christians have heretofore considered what Anglicans are currently debating as impermissible and immoral. We cannot have a debate about whether to do something which the American church in particular with ever increasing speed is continuing to do. The way in which the American church has gone about this has been a fiasco for those advocating for this change . The global debate by TEC’s actions has been set back many more years than most dare to understand.

Amidst all the pleading to work together and to have conversation and on and on must be understood that without a total cessation of the practice–which is what the Windsor Report pleaded for–no meaningful progress is really possible. And what is about to happen at Lambeth 2008 if there is no cessation is that the de facto situation in the entire Anglican Communion will be one of reception on the matter of blessing non-celibate same sex unions. Perceptive readers of the Windsor Report will know that on this matter ‘reception’ is not the Anglican Communion’s collective discernment of how to handle this question. But if nothing is done then whether there is a claim to work together or talk more or not, the tear at the deepest level on the Anglican Communion will get worse. This reality is what the Episcopal Church of the Sudan was rightly getting at.

If this tragedy occurs, the responsibility will lie in manifold places, but it will fall primarily–as it does increasingly–at Archbishop Rowan Williams’ feet.

—Yours truly, on July 25

I am also aware that there is a deliberate desire at this decade’s conference to avoid a focus upon parliamentary debate and resolutions, and instead focus upon common discussion, listening, and prayer. This is as it should be: for what council of bishops could ever speak faithfully unless its words emerged from a mind submitted to and brought together in the Spirit of Christ Jesus? And how shall this happen but through the gathering in prayer in the example of the first Apostles?

But if this prayerful reflection does not, in this time, give rise to a common resolution regarding the responsibilities of your own pastoral office and the ordering of our common life, such devoted intentions will have been wasted, perhaps culpably so.

—The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, before Lambeth 2008 started

Nevertheless, the process is catching “the direction of travel” as the conservative Bishop of Winchester described it…and I don’t think he was being kind. Despite the bishop’s worry this document is not an enthused advocate for gay and lesbian progress. Lambeth 1-10 from 1998 remains on the books (homosexuality is at odds with Holy Scripture) and it looks like we might be extending the moratoria as a “season of gracious restraint.” That cessation refers to the blessing of same sex unions, ordinations to the episcopate, and incursions by other bishops across diocesan boundaries.

There was a workshop called “The Devil is in the Details” which I missed. There is much rightful buzz about making sure about what is the difference between “authorized liturgies for same sex unions” and “suggestions” from the bishop’s office. Further, since there is already a moratorium observed in the American Church when, they hasten to ask, will these roaming bishops cease and desist?

A hot button for the Africans has been equating the practice of polygamy and the current challenge to accommodate homosexuality in holy orders. “We have never allowed persons in such a state to enter positions of leadership,” they say. The Archbishop of York (an African) said his grandfather set his wives apart with property when he became a Christian and said Americans were “chasing butterflies” with that argument. Perhaps it was a lull from the seagulls but even I understood that the comparison was not of substance but of process. Christianity has always acquired new ways of adapting to the time. Males aren’t required to be circumcised before becoming Christians anymore. Apparently there was an accomodation for polygamy, so would the Church do that for homosexuality?

Read it all. One’s mind boggles to read reflections like this. Already a moratorium observed in the American church? Hello? There were two moratoria called for and they are NOT being observed in the Episcopal Church as Gene Robinson had the honesty and forthrightness to say AFTER the House of Bishops New Orleans meeting in September 2007 (and which the report wrongly evaluated). [As the Bishop of California amply makes clear in a post below on the blog today, one moratorium is not being observed today in the diocese of California and will not be after Lambeth 2008]. There was NOT accomodation for polygamy but temporary accomodation for polygamists spouses out of genuine compassionate concern, and this was with church members never church leaders. And, no, circumcision is not the same. One wishes Bishop Packard could have a long conversation with, say, the Archbishop of Jos about such things–KSH.

In a final draft of the communiqué, debated by bishops in a closed ”˜hearing’ last night, the bishops say there is ”˜widespread support’ for three moratoria:

’This could be the “generous act of love” the communion is looking for. The moratoria could be taken as part of a sign of the bishops’ affection, trust and goodwill towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and one another. The moratoria will be difficult to enforce, so there are some fears as to whether it will hold. But there is a desire to make it do so.

”˜There are questions to be explored in relation to how long the moratoria are intended to serve. Perhaps the moratoria could be seen as a “season of gracious restraint.”’

There was also strong support for a new global Pastoral Forum – a rapid deployment hit squad which could be sent to intervene where actions by provinces threaten to cause disruption to the life of the Communion. The Pastoral Forum would also act as a ”˜friendly uncle’ providing shelter for those parishes which have pulled away from their dioceses and provinces until such time as they can be ”˜returned to their parents’.

”˜There is an agreement that it should be pastoral and not legal and should be able to respond quickly. It was also clearly stated that this process should always be moving towards reconciliation with the parent Province.’

But the bishops stressed: ”˜It would need to be clear that the forum could operate in a Province only with its consent and in particular with the consent of the Primate of the Province. There was some support for an alternative suggestion to appoint in any dispute a Pastoral Visitor, working with a professional arbitrator and to create in the Communion a “pool” of such visitors.’

The Reflections Drafting Group will prepare a final version of the statement today, taking into account last night’s hearing. It will be presented to the bishops this afternoon when they are expected to affirm it.

But whether this will make any difference is yet to be seen.

Read it all. I have to admit I found the description of the pastoral forum–“a rapid deployment hit squad”–amusing since it hardly sounded Anglican and since nothing the Anglican Communion hierarchy has done like this recently has remotely approached being able to be described by such a title!

But more important to me was the title Lichfield gave to the press release and the verb they chose in the first paragraph. “Bishops agree way forward for Anglican Communion,” they tell us. “After two-and-a-half weeks of prayer, Bible study, reflection, and what was predicted to be ”˜frank expression and robust debate’, the bishops will this afternoon agree a ”˜Reflections Document’ setting out their vision of the future of the Anglican Communion.” Interesting word choice, that. Agree means “to give consent; assent” or “to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement.” But how exactly will this happen at Lambeth 2008? And given the length and the meandering motley nature of the final statement, what would their agreeing to it actually mean?

Sorry, but these words are a projection of wish fulfillment but not the reality of what is taking place on the ground. All of which comes back to my anxiety about this Lambeth from the outset–the nature of the process and what it was designed to achieve. The only thing which was clear was what the bishops were not doing–parliamentary procedure, resolutions, voting, amendments, etc. Ok, fine. But if that is what the process isn’t, then what is the alternative? None of the participants seems clear on the answer, and no, that is not a good thing in any conference, especially one where the leaders gathered face on of the greatest crises in their history–KSH.

The only way to stay sane and be courteous is to pass a rigid self-denying ordinance that “I will only use of other people designations they use of themselves.” This could helpfully be supplemented by a simple Bart Simpson Blackboard resolution: “I will not hi-jack other people’s labels to spite my enemies.” If all that came out of this Lambeth were a few people resolving along these lines, that would be grief to the weasels, and joy to the world.

Read it all.

Amid the confusion caused by their divisions over what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, Anglican bishops meeting for the Lambeth Conference have come to realise one thing – that the Anglican Communion cannot continue as it is.

Information from the bishops’ discussion of the subject shows an awareness of the enormous gulf in how each side views the very nature of Anglicanism.

For Anglicans, as the bishops’ reflections document explains, “in some parts [much of Africa, for a start] homosexual and lesbian relations are a taboo; in others [the United States, for example] it has become a justice issue”.

There’s a growing acceptance that divisions are likely to intensify, and that the Episcopal Church in the United States is likely to ordain another gay bishop before very long.

Meanwhile the conservative alliance set up in Jerusalem last month – the traditionalist church-within-the-church that thumbed its nose at the Lambeth Conference and at the Archbishop of Canterbury – will continue to recruit and organise inside the Episcopal Church’s territory.

The official group set up to find a way out of the crisis acknowledged it faced “a long and arduous road” in rescuing the Communion.

In fact, if things simply stay as they are there might not even be another Lambeth Conference.

Read it all.

The idea of a covenant itself was mainly accepted by Episcopal Church bishops, said Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana. “I did not find any American bishop who was unable to accept the idea of covenant,” he said. “I think that there is a strand amongst us that ”¦ is not necessarily going to be happy about it.”

Jenkins added that “part of the sacrifice most American bishops are willing to make is that we will accept a covenant and accept the moratoria.” Aspinall said that one American bishop told him that he came into the conference opposed to a covenant, but his support is growing day by day.

However, Bishop Marc Andrus of Diocese of California — where the Supreme Court recently ruled that marriage is open to gays — said that a moratorium “is a non-starter for me.” He also noted that in relation to the other part of the moratoria — ending incursions into other churches — “the main perpetuators of the incursions are not present so [it’s difficult] for me to make an agreement on moratoria on that basis.

“The [main] reason I am committed to continuing blessings is because it’s a justice issue,” he said. “While we defer and wait, there are many gays and lesbians, transgendered and bisexual people all over the world who continue to be denied their civil and human rights.”

Although Jenkins said he believed “it is possible to make a sacrifice without selling out,” he said that it is “a moral dilemma for me” if gay and lesbian Anglicans have a sacrifice imposed on them. He added that the covenant proposals represent “a commitment to minimize the impact of something I do upon another person.”

Read it all.

[I need to say]…that joy and laughter have characterised much of the Lambeth Conference. This evening I had two experiences which almost seem contrary to the same context.

First I went to the final ‘hearing’ on the ‘Reflections’ which will report on the conference. This was a rather ridiculous meeting in an overcrowded lecture theatre in which contributors tried to redraft texts they had only just seen. The status of the final report from the conference remains unclear – and will do so until tomorrow – and bishops were clearly struggling with it. Because the report contains the substance reported from the Indaba Groups, it is selective and descriptive rather than prescriptive and final. If there is to be a criticism of the process we have experienced here, it is simply that there is insufficient time to come up with a properly drafted statement that can command the unanimous support of the bishops. The process might have proved to be weak at this point and some people predicted this might happen.

But it also exposes the anxieties of those who cannot bear not being in control. The key outcome of this conference has been the relationships built, the connections made, the learning based on genuine respectful listening and the willingness to commit to a generous space for the future. This cannot be measured on a balance sheet or by signatures on a page. I am not alone in being glad that this is the case as we need to find new ways of having our conversations and disagreements in the Church of God. What we have experienced here offers a new way forward for the future. Bishops of differing opinions and stances have vowed to remain in regular contact in order to belong together in the Communion and further the conversations.

The Vatican observer sitting next to me at the beginning of this meeting was staggered that we would handle textual matters and processes in such a naff way and eventually left expressing some bewilderment before he did.

That said, however, the Spirit is at work here and people are working hard to produce a report that will give the flavour of the conference and help describe what it was about – rather than simply issue a statement that people can either sign up to or ignore.

Read it all (the timestamp is Sunday 3 August 2008 – 12:53am).

On Sunday, they leave Canterbury, England, and return to their dioceses, hoping their talks at the Lambeth Conference have held off a permanent split over the Bible and homosexuality.

“We seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life,” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told the 650 bishops at the event. “We need to speak life to each other and that means change.”

Long-simmering differences over what Anglicans should believe erupted in 2003, when the Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Anglican theological conservatives recently formed their own worldwide network within the communion that challenges Williams’ authority but stops short of schism.

No one expected the conference to definitively resolve the conflict.

More than 200 traditionalist bishops boycotted Lambeth. Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, planned the event with no resolutions or votes, focusing instead on rebuilding frayed relationships. In place of an official end-of-meeting statement, the bishops Sunday will release their “reflections” on the event.

Still, the gathering was closely watched by other religious groups.

Read it all.

Our bishops have one more opportunity to make their voices heard in their Indaba groups tomorrow before this “draft” comes final and I know for a fact certain that many of them have been doing precisely that against extraordinary odds and at significant cost.

Pray for the bishops. Pray for the church. And pray that we refuse to settle for “well, it could have been worse” … and that we continue to challenge this church and communion of ours to live up to its high calling to BE the Body of Christ in the World.

A lot of pain and anger and hurt there, makes the heart sad–read it all.

With permission and yes I doublechecked that it is in the public domain–KSH.

AFTER THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE: A WORD FROM THE BISHOPS OF THE DIOCESE OF EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA AND THE HORN OF AFRICA

WE, the bishops of the Diocese of Egypt, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, wish to express our appreciation and thankfulness for the Lambeth Conference now ended. It has been a great joy to experience the fellowship, mutual support and counsel of fellow bishops from around the world. This conference has been a most valuable opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns and to listen to the concerns of others.

We give thanks to God for the witness of the Anglican Communion and for the many testimonies of faith we have shared during this special time together. We are humbled by the faithfulness of so many who bring the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ at great cost in places of hardship and even oppression.

We wish to convey a special word of appreciation and thanks to Archbishop Rowan and also to Jane Williams for all their hospitality and we will continue to hold them in prayer daily. We also wish to thank all the Lambeth Palace and Anglican Communion and Consultative Council staff for all their hard work as well as the staff of Kent University.

It is with great sadness however that we remember those who for the sake of conscience are unable to be with us. We think of those from Provinces and Dioceses who felt it would not be appropriate to be present on account of the unilateral actions taken by the Episcopal Church in America in breach of the Resolution 1.10 of the last Lambeth Conference now again reaffirmed as still expressing the mind of the church as a whole. We share their sense of pain that such unilateralism has so strained the bonds of our unity as to leave them now still impaired.
We must all pray for a spirit of mutual submission to prevail and for unity to be restored and we join with our African brothers and sisters in the Conference of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) in unity with the wider Global South movement in support of the Windsor continuation process, the Covenant and the three (retroactive) moratoria comprising
a cessation of

Ӣ The blessing of same-sex unions
Ӣ Ordinations to Holy Orders of those living in same-sex relationships
Ӣ Episcopal interventions across diocesan and Provincial borders

We do note, however, that the first two listed pertain to central moral teaching while the last is a matter simply of administration and good order. We are mindful that it is a break with the mind of the church in matters pertaining to sexuality that has occasioned the crossing of borders. We do commend the rapid establishment of the proposed Pastoral Forum with the guidance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and in consultation with the Presiding Bishop of the United States as there is an urgent need for truly effective provision of such extended pastoral care as is acceptable to those who feel the need for it.

At this difficult time in the life of our Communion we do appreciate profoundly the prayerful help and support of our ecumenical partners and especially the Coptic Orthodox Church, all of whom have made so clear that they share our concern to preserve the full participation of the Anglican Communion in the wider Christian fellowship.

We also wish to express a particular word of support for our neighbours in Africa in the Anglican Province of Sudan which has suffered so grievously in recent times. We recognize the extraordinary witness of their courage in the faith and offer them our most fervent prayers and support.

Lastly, we think especially of those in our Province and dioceses. We give heartfelt thanks to all those who have been praying for us and for the wider conference and to whom we now return with joy and thanksgiving in the praise of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

+ Mouneer Egypt, +Derek Eaton, +Andrew Proud

Among the key proposals, they suggest a new framework that could censure rebellious Churches and a central “pastoral forum” to settle disputes.

However, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, said that the Archbishop’s plan to maintain unity lacked a sense of urgency and was unlikely to work.

“The Lambeth Conference is required to do something rather than live down to the worst expectations of the bishops who stayed away,” he said.

“We need to negotiate a separation in the Communion sooner rather than later, to leave the strongest possibility of remaining in some kind of fellowship.”

Bishop Scott-Joynt said that he was concerned that traditional Churches in Africa would break away unless the Lambeth Conference delivers a clear definition of what Anglicanism represents in the final report.

Read it all.

The voice of the Anglican Church of Australia was the center of much attention today as we strained to be heard in a positive way. When people here talk about the “elephant in the room,” we know it is the Anglican Church of Australia and our actions about which they are talking. By and large, we have come to Lambeth 2028 to listen to our brothers and sisters, but by today many of them wanted us to start talking about how we envision the future. And thus, we told our story.

When much discussion centered around the moratoria referenced in the Nottingham Report (specifically about the lay persons celebrating Holy Eucharist, the process by which such lay celebrants are prepared and approved, and the violation of provincial boundaries by outside bishops), it seemed at times to turn to legalisms: what do certain words mean and how long a moratorium might be in place. I tried to change the tenor of the discussion a bit in my Indaba group by reminding my fellow bishops that what we all both want and need is to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in our midst. The Anglican Church of Australia just might be the crucible in which we test the validity of how the Spirit is working. It may be the case that affirming parishes in different experiences of Holy Communion can lead to an effective gospel witness. It may be the case that lay celebrants of Holy Communion can be effective gospel witnesses. And conversely, it may not. What we are asking is that we be offered the space by the Communion to see if this is indeed the case; if it is of God, we will eventually know it. If it is not, we will eventually know it as well. Either way, it can be our gift to the Communion. If we trust that in the long run God’s desire will be known, we have nothing to fear and much to gain.

This intercepted letter occurred in a milieu preceded by a season in which the diocese of Sydney had prayerfully deliberated for years and years and finally, by an overwhelming majority, approved the possibility of lay eucharistic celebration under certain diocesan and episcopal conditions in some parishes in their diocese. Later the General Synod of the Church of Australia met and decided not to oppose the actions of the diocese of Sydney because all proper procedures were carefully followed and no existing canons were violated. At Lambeth 2028 in indaba groups many bishops from Australia made the argument that: it isn’t in the creeds, it is not core doctrine, and that Jesus said nothing about lay eucharistic celebration. However the two arguments most often heard were “this is all about our context, you really need to come and understand Australia on its own terms” and “we are Anglicans and we must just agree to disagree about this agreeably, why are some of you seeking to be so punitive?”

The Lambeth Conference of 2028 ended with a final address and eucharistic sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the release of a 37 page document of Reflections summarizing the work of the Indaba groups. Contacted immediately after the conference’s conclusion, one European bishop said in an interview. “This was a wonderful conference. My Bible study group was meaningful, useful, uplifting and characterized by generous listening. There is no substitute for personal, face to face interaction.” Asked to summarize the conference, he went on: “We love the Anglican Communion. We love the Archbishop of Canterbury and the chance to gather. None of us knows exactly what that means, but we need one another as we walk toward the future God has for us.”