TEC 'regret' ok, says Gang of Four

' Worryingly for a contemporary religion correspondent, I find myself in the journalistically ambivalent position of having to report that peace has broken out among Archbishops of the Anglican Church.'

That's what I wrote at 4.30pm.

Reassuringly, half an hour later, battle has recommenced. I can now report that the unity of the Anglican Communion is once more 'hanging by a thread.' Schism looms again. Phew, what a relief.

The report of the 'Gang of Four', the group set up to look at TEC's response to Windsor, has been presented to the Primates meeting in Tanzania today, Thursday. At first glance, it looked good and augured well for future unity. But initial responses from the orthodox are not promising. 'Chilling,' is how Kendall Harmon described it, warning that schism now was even closer than before. This report would have the effect of propelling TEC further away from the centre and hasten any breach that is looming, he said. The responses on the conservative site StandFirm support Kendall's analysis. And I love this analysis from the GetReligion site, from which this 'Anglican Bomb' picture is taken: 'Once again the Africans pray, the Americans pay and the British write the resolutions.' More on what my colleagues are saying from Thinking Anglicans. My sources tell me an unearthly calm has descended on this beautiful resort on the Indian Ocean. I can't help but wonder if it is the sort of calm that precedes a tsunami. We've reported it briefly in the main paper, and other reports are linked to at TA, including this one from Colin Coward at Dar es Salaam, which gives an idea, right from the heart of the action, of what life actually is like for a gay man in the Anglican Communion today.

Meanwhile, TEC is at last fighting back by launching into the blogosphere, and in the way blogs tend to do, the very first offerings reveal some interesting truths about the province and call into question even some of the assumptions about a change of heart made by the committee report on TEC discussed in this post. Thus Robert Williams, aide to Bishop Jefferts Schori, reveals that she will not budge an inch in her liberal views on the gay issue. “The spirit of Anglicanism will prevail here and there will be a middle way forward,” he said. The Presiding Bishop “will not waver in her stand for justice and inclusion of all people in the body of Christ.”

I also learn from this blog that Canada's Primate Andrew Hutchison is blogging from the convention. He writes: 'I believe in an inclusive Church that has its doors open to all and that accepts and welcomes people regardless of the human definitions that we may place upon them – male/female, white/black, gay/straight etc etc.  We run the danger of making the Church a club for like-minded people rather than a place of refuge for the sinner and hope for the hurt and vulnerable.'

Come on Rowan, when are you going to get with it?

Anyway, I'm adding epiScope to my favourites right away, I can't wait to see what else appears.

But back to our all-is-sweetness fudge-of-the-day.

Fundamentally, the response of TEC to Windsor at GenCon06 was deemed by the group set up to look into it to be adequate except with regard to same-sex blessings. At the meeting, which began at 9am and went through to 5pm at the heavily-guarded White Sands Hotel in Dar es Salaam, both TEC's Primate Katharine Jefferts Schori and the CofE's Dr John Sentamu remained present as full members. Fears that either might be asked to leave, or that there would be a walk-out by Global South Primates if they were permitted to remain, did not materialise. Peter Ould is carrying a summary of the press briefing led by Australian primate Dr Phillip Aspinall that has just taken place about the report. The Primates did not celebrate the eucharist, but did take part in an act of corporate penitence using the Litany of Common Prayer. It seemed for a brief moment that it might have worked.

At the press conference at White Sands hotel in Dar es Salaam this evening, Aspinall, pictured above, was asked whether TEC still needed to be disciplined, and whether schism was closer or further away. The answers he gave to both were frustratingly imprecise. He said that although TEC in its GenCon resolutions did not use the precise language of the Windsor Report, it did the most that could have been done, and the reponse was adequate in its own terms.

The Primates will be discussing specific proposals tomorrow, along with a report from the Panel of Reference set up to oversee disputes in the Communion, along with the long-awaited Anglican Covenant. 'The covenant proposal will provide a vehicle for healing and reconciliation,' he said.

Expect more vagueness still tomorrow. Clearly, everyone in Tanzania is walking the well-trodden Anglican Way. Or are they?

Kendall Harmon of TitusOneNine was one of the first off the mark. 'It is a really, really poor report. This report was written by someone who was not at General Convention. It is shocking that a report like this could have been written at this stage. General Convention took the Windsor Report and subverted it entirely so they could use it as they wanted to use it and they have already started doing this. This report allows that subversion to be used and even welcomes it. They have completely missed the intent of the Windsor Report. Same-sex unions is the only part the report gets right but it is way too soft. This report continues TEC's move away from the Communion.'

Kendall warned that schism had now been brought even closer. 'This has made the survival of the Anglican Communion less likely. That is what breaks my heart. I would say there is an inch of thread left. We have less thread than we had yesterday. The report does not deal honestly with what actually happened at General Convention last year, with the real situation on the ground. The Primates now have to do even more work because the report does not give them the correct analysis.'

For myself, I do wonder whether Dr Akinola will live with this classic recipe for another Anglican fudge. I can't help thinking his tooth might not not be quite as sweet as that of the Western liberal Church.

The Primates at their Dromantine meeting in February 2005 asked that TEC express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection had been breached in the events surrounding the consecration of Bishopm Gene Robinson,  that there be a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion and also a moratorium on same-sex blessings. The report on TEC's response ends with noting: 'The issue of same-sex relationship has been on the agenda of the Instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion since 1978.  Failure to address it then and on subsequent occasions has only exacerbated that situation.  Our churches and Communion have suffered greatly from that failure. Our Instruments of Communion must be pro-active in identifying such potentially divisive issues in the future.'

The members of the committee set up to look at this under the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams were the Archbishop of Central Africa Bernard Malango, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan (one of three Primates not in Tanzania), Chancellor Philippa Amable, Province of West Africa and Canon Elizabeth Paver of the Church of England. It is interesting that Elizabeth Paver is a highly-respected General Synod member but extremely orthodox and an opponent even of the ordination of women priests. If she is on the group and the group has decreed that TEC has passed muster, I reckon that is pretty significant.

The committe found that TEC has taken Windsor and its recommendations 'extemely seriously'.

On the election of bishops, the group noted that in the relevant GenCon06 resolution,  the language of moratorium asked for by Windsor had not been used, merely the language of restraint. Apparently it difficult legally to talk of a moratorium under The Episcopal Church's constitution. 
Instead TEC talked of "restraint". The group found TEC had complied 'with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report because most bishops have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop 'whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion.'  According to the group, 'This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003.'

Regarding same-sex blessings, GenCon06 did not specifically consider a moratorium but did decline to proceed with several resolutions in favour of them. Several dioceses have independently backed them, however, including Bishop Jefferts Schori's own former diocese of Nevada. Up to 16 out of the 108 US dioceses are thought to have moved or be moving towards same-sex blessings. As the group noted, 'It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter.' The group say in their report: 'This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.'

Then finally, there is that all-important 'expression of regret' demanded from TEC.

The report says: 'Finally, we must turn to the issue of the statement of regret requested by the Windsor Report, and affirmed by the Primates at Dromantine.  It is to be noted that the Windsor Report did not request "repentance", although this request has been voiced in some quarters in the Communion. Equally, the Windsor Report went beyond asking for an acknowledgement of the hurt and offence caused by the implications of the decision to consecrate a bishop living in an openly acknowledged sexual relationship outside marriage in contradiction to the teaching upheld in Lambeth Resolution 1.10.  The report argued that there had been a breach of the proper constraints of the bonds of affection, and it was this breach for which regret ought to be expressed.  In the event, the relevant resolution, approved by General Convention is as follows:

"Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of "the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ" (Windsor Report,  paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of  communion one with another."

The report continues: 'A number of things have to be noted about this resolution.  In the first place, General Convention voted down a proposal to adopt the precise wording of the Windsor Report, arguing that it was impossible to know what "the proper constraints of the bonds of affection" were.  The group has some sympathy for this view.  Instead, however, Convention expressed regret for "straining the bonds of affection", and offered its apology "to those offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion". It goes on to "ask forgiveness".  The group was unsure how these words should be understood.  On the one hand, there does not seem to be any admission of the fact that the action of consenting to the particular election at the centre of this dispute was in itself blameworthy.  On the other, there is the use of the strong language of "apology" and the request for "forgiveness". These words are not lightly offered, and should not be lightly received. Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates.'

The group made clear however that the reality of 'the change of direction that some see in the resolutions of the General Convention' can only be tested 'by the way in which The Episcopal Church lives out these resolutions.'

The group concludes: 'There was clearly a strong groundswell within the General Convention to walk more closely with the Communion and in the commitment to a common life.  There is considerable diversity of opinion within the Episcopal Church - as indeed there is across the life of the Communion.  It is clear that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is going to continue for the foreseeable future as the standard of teaching by which the Anglican Communion as a whole will live.  It is also clear that it is not only those who have expressed their strong disassociation from the decisions of the 74th General Convention in 2003 who have a commitment to the life of the Communion.  There are many elements of the Episcopal Church who share that commitment, who wish to abide within the full recommendations of the Windsor Report and still remain committed to the life of the Episcopal Church.  It is the duty of the wider Communion to nourish and encourage all those within the Episcopal Church who wish to embrace our common and interdependent life.'

In an email, Kendall enlarged more specifically on his concerns with the document:

'The report completely misunderstands the general language employed in B033. The language is lifted directly from resolution A161 which was defeated in the House of Deputies at General Convention earlier the same week.

Resolution A161 states with regard to bishops: “Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion…”

The explanation provided for this language is as follows: “The resolution does not specify what constitutes a "manner of life" that "presents a challenge to the wider church;" we leave this to the prayerful discernment of those involved in nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops. Concerns we discussed were by no means limited to the nature of the family life; for example, the potential of bishops to serve effectively as pastors for all within their diocese, and their level of commitment to respect the dignity of and strive for justice for all people are also relevant.”

'Obviously, the “widening” is not intended to provide for even greater compliance to Communion principles but rather to provide greater space for diocesan nominating committees and conventions to decide for themselves what sort of lifestyle might pose a “challenge” to the wider church.

'This is in fact what is now happening with the consent process to the episcopal election in the diocese of South Carolina.  The person elected, Mark Lawrence, is supportive of the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion and a large number of standing committees and bishops are voting against him BASED on resolution B033.  So a resolution which supposedly back the windsor report is in fact being used to negate the windsor report and indeed making an already bad situation in the Communion worse.  There is now a real chance that Suth Carolina will not get the necessary consents by the March 9th 2007 deadline, in which case what will be communicated is: no one of traditional faith can be approved as bishop in this province again.  Chilling.'

(ps. Just a little update. I was taken to task a few blogs back for calling Jefferts Schori just that. So since then I've religiously been calling her Bishop or Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori. But lo and behold, TEC's own new blog epiScope calls her Jefferts Schori. So sorry if it offends anyone here, but it's back to Jefferts Schori for me as well, unless the good bishop herself complains. And somehow I think she might have other things to occupy her mind at present. Actually, I can't imagine she's even read this blog, ever, so I don't know what I was worrying about in the first place. Yours, Gledhill.)

Comments

[W. J. A. Power+]

rg,
On different occasions you have recorded your great respect for both the spirituality and the intelligence of the ABC and I have shared your viewpoint. But now in the face of the "Gang of Four's" strange response to TEC's refusal to submit to either Windsor or Dromantine, I'm left in a state of bewilderment. How does one explain the contorted analysis of GC06? I hesitate to question his intelligence or his honesty but something is amiss somewhere. I wonder if you have any ideas, in light of the fact that you are obviously closer to the man. Thanks.

[Andrew Eburne]

'Whether Andrew Eburne cares to admit it or not...'

With all respect, Rob, I wasn't aware that I wrote anything that could be construed as 'caring' or 'not caring' to admit anything!

Pax!

[Rob Watford]

I must admit that I too am worried that Ruth Gledhill finds herself in a "journalistically ambivalent position" with regards to the Anglican church; particularly as she seems to have no understanding of the history of that church. Have a look at the seventeenth-century protestation returns Ruth! There were not many Catholics living in England at that time; most of the population converted to Anglicanism in the same way that you converted to decimal currency, and if Mary Tudor had behaved herself we'd probably all have remained Catholic anyway! Better still Ruth - walk up to the gates outside Balliol College Oxford and gaze up in the direction of St Giles - you might actually learn something!

[Martin]

"It is interesting that Elizabeth Paver is a highly-respected General Synod member but extremely orthodox and an opponent even of the ordination of women priests."

If she is an opponent of the ordination of women, how come she has the title of canon? Presumably she must have undergone an Anglican ordination in order to acquire that?

(rg writes: she is a lay canon of Sheffield Cathedral, she is not ordained.)

[bls]

The 'conservatives' seem to want a church that asks for something.

Certainly - as long as it's asking somebody else.

I'm sure heterosexual "conservatives" will happily take vows to refrain from "homosexual behavior." Easy as pie! The real question is what will happen when they are asked for something that actually has something to do with them?

Tune in next time!

(P.S.: If you really want to convince gay people you're serious about sacrifice, here's my suggestion: "conservatives" need to get together and draw lots to see which random 10% of you will be volunteered by the others to live celibate lives.

The restriction must start from puberty. No dating will be allowed, ever, and certainly no dancing or kissing. No Valentine's Day cards. No "heterosexual behavior" of any sort.

Just randomly choose. You folks will, I'm sure, consider yourselves lucky to be asked for something at last. And it will be so inspiring for us!)

[Rob Watford]

Whether Andrew Eburne cares to admit it or not, these same debates are taking place within the Roman Catholic Church; the difference being that Anglicanism does not have a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; it is not possible to be an ultramontane Anglican.

[Gospel Witness]

As a recent convert to Orthodoxy, I also apologize for commenting, but I pray that Anglicanism will remain faithful to the Apostles' teaching and not be lead astray by false teachers.

[Andrew Eburne]

As a Catholic I'm aware that I may be sticking my nose in where it's not wanted, so I apologise in advance to any Anglicans who may be offended.

Looking in as an outsider, however, one has a different perspective.
I've looked at the various blogs on both sides, and what strikes me at once is just how far apart the two sides are: these are two different mind-sets, with different languages, and it's difficult to see how they can, ultimately, be compatible.
I do think, however, that those who characterize the debate in terms of power, money, authority or even homosexuality, don't really do justice to either side (even if the wilder ones on both sides seem to be picking up just about any weapon with which to brain their supposed opponents).

As an outsider it seems to me the Anglicans are really debating what kind of church they want to have. Do they want a church which asks nothing of its members in return for their continued membership? or do they want a church which asks something?
I don't want to caricature either side, but it seems the 'liberals' want a church that asks for nothing. No matter who you are, no matter what you believe, no matter what you have done, you are welcome here.
The 'conservatives' seem to want a church that asks for something.

The liberal position on the surface is the really attractive one. There are two problems, however. One is that Anglicanism has never asked for 'nothing'. A school church history will tell you of the Anglican quadrilateral of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the historic episcopate. This is the 'something' for which the conservatives appear to be fighting. It's very difficult to see liberals signing up to that 'something' any more. But without it, it's very difficult to see how Anglicanism could be Anglicanism. It might be another Protestant denomination, but it wouldn't be Anglicanism any more.
And to this end I would have agree with Ruth, that there seems no joining of the two sides.

The other problem - and here we're on broader and more debateable ground, so I apologise once again for any offence - is that Christianity itself has never asked for nothing. On the contrary it asks for everything: 'unless a man lose his life, he cannot save it.' God asks us for everything: and in return, he gives us more than we can imagine. Part of that everything - a troubling part for modern Europe - has always been repentance: from John the Baptist preaching a gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, right through to the present day. Everyone is welcome in the Church, but ultimately God asks something of us, something that we have to give freely. As a Catholic I am immensely blessed that what is asked of me is mediated by a magisterium and an apostolic priesthood. It doesn't make the giving any easier, but it makes it more straightforward. I pray that Anglicans on all sides find that what they are asked to give is not impossibly painful

[Alice C. Linsley]

In as much as this crisis has roots in 20th century liberal and neo-marxist theologies, it is about power. Is it about power for African and other Global South primates? Yes, in the sense that they do see through the political machinations of the Left.

[Tom Jackson]

In disagreement with some views expressed here, this issue is not about control, power, money or anything but ensuring that the clear message of Christ is not manipulated, distorted or otherwise corrupted.

It is no surprise that given the influence worldly values and issues have gained over our lives today, that there is confusion about the acceptance of homosexual behaviour in the Church. It is also no surprise that Christians with homosexual tendencies want to see their behaviour as normal.

Let those who believe homosexuality should not prevent people from assuming positions of influence and authority in a Church divorce themselves from the mainstream majority of the Communion and go their own way. Time will show if this is the right move, rigorous exposure will determine the acceptability and strength of such a decision and growth and stability - if achieved - will give some indication of God's intention for His people.

I must be one of the few Christians who regularly contribute to blogs such as this who - while interested and concerned about events in the Anglican Communion - is resting easy in the knowledge that while all sides are rushing around like squabbling children in a poorly supervised playgroup, God is in control, Christianity is strong and vibrant and when all the toys are put away and the badly behaved children return to their homes, we are still assured of His love.

[Chris Webb]

Hi Ruth,

A few thoughts.

Romans 1 condemns homosexual behaviour. This must be accepted by all Christians (especially in the Diocese of New Hampshire).
1 Corinthians 6 condemns lawsuits between Christians. This may be safely ignored by all Christians (especially in the Diocese of Virginia).

The Windsor Report condemns the election of homosexual bishops. This must be accepted by all Anglicans (especially Katherine Jefferts Schori).
The Windsor Report condemns provinces interfering across provincial boundaries. This may be safely ignored (especially by Peter Akinola).

Does anyone seriously still think this is about the Bible and gays and lesbians? Isn't it abundantly clear it's about power (codeword: 'authority') and money?

[Dave Paisley]

Doesn't anyone think that the African Bishops would be better off worrying about the 5+% incidence of HIV infection in their provinces and the spiritual responses to that rather than worrying about what goes on in the US?

Captain Akinola and his merry crew on the Titanic seem to be worrying more about the US deck chairs than the horror that stares them in the face on a daily basis.

[Nebo]

Wow, these comments are filled with examples of what is wrong with this whole deal.

Phil & Shawn, you have to remove the plank from your own eyes my friends. Talk to liberal folk in Pittsburgh or Fort Worth and you will hear similar stories from ones you tell. The liberals are mean and we are minding our own buisiness is a lie and you know it when you are telling it. Perhaps the fact you see your bishop as an enemy is the first problem. I know liberals in conservative diocese (like where I live) and conservatives in liberal ones where people respectfully and honestly disagree. It is tense but they work at it in the spirit of obedience to Christ.

I was at GC iin Columbus. I talked with conservative and liberal folks I know, none were happy. That is what compromise and communion looks like I am afraid. The report I read from the subgroup reflects my experience in Columbus.

Worst of all, the thing that IS killing the church isn't even being discussed. The fact that we think this matter. Sexuality is the issue de jour in the west so we have taken it as our duty as chaplain to the culture to fight about it. Want to know why the church is in trouble, we lost our prophetic voice. Not about stupid junk like this, but things like honesty, charity and humility. How about poverty and injustice in our consumer societies or any host of the real problems in our world.

Want to know what is killing our church. Ask anyone under 35 if they care about this issue. The answer is almost always no. Ask them if they care about the other issues, the answer is almost always yes. It is a message Bono gets but few Bishops do.

If you think the issues being bantied around in Tanzania are important then you need to get over yourself.

Sadly, I don't susppect we will.

Peace+

Nebo

[Bishop David Chislett]

Many of us in Australia are gobsmacked that +Carnley and +Aspinall have become in their own ways the ones entrusted with the task of reconciliation in the Anglican Communion. Has anyone bothered to consider their own dismal track records back home when it comes to dealing with those who do not share their liberal modernist assumptions?

[Alice C. Linsley]

The Episcopal Church has not complied with the Windsor recommendations which were intended to create space for healing and real conversation. Instead, it has pushed its radical social agenda to such an extreme that there is concern even among homosexual Christians. It is more a political organization than a church, and certainly not The Church. The calm on the beautiful Indian Ocean may be because the decision has been made. When God grants clarity, it is attended by great peace and assurance.

[Simon]

In the Garden of Gethsamane Jesus took on all of our sins. He didn't say anything like "your sins are homosexual so I won't forgive you". But for all of you who want to make your sexuality pre-eminent in this discussion, you are sinners just like the rest of us!

If you want to be a priest in the order of Malchizadech, then you should at the very least be able to control the flesh for the glory of God. If you cannot (like me), then try to find someone you can share your life with in a way that fills you with a sense of seeking truth.

Why would anyone who had such issues with sexuality put themselves forward as priests to help reconcile God with man ? As someone who has my own challenges in life - I feel myself unsuitable to be a priest. I find the arrogance of TEC in feeling themselves worthy above any considerations offensive to all that Christianity is.

If anyone here who denies Christ (and his catholic Church) can use the great wisdom they pretend to have, and tell me the nature of life - without referring to the resultant 'signs of life' - then they have some qualification to make comments. If they have some idea about where the universe came from, with all its perfectly tuned laws of physics, then they can comment.

As it is, all of you who reject Jesus are as bad as those who accept Jesus as part of some extreme US right wing political agenda. Both extremes have lost truth as an ideal. Both extremes accept fairy tail reality.

I'm actually a fan of the monarchy, despite the fact I chose Catholicism when I realised christianity. I think Prince Charles would make a better leader than any of the leaders of our 'democratic' parties. But I cannot understand how anyone of faith can believe that Henry VIII's desire to reproduce can possibly represent an honest faith in Jesus. It seems almost as ridiculous as a faith that claims Jesus to be a prophet, but not the messiah as He himself claimed to be.

Perhaps its time to admit that the schism, the divorce, happened long ago. Now its time to follow the reconciler and reconcile with the Church he started. Why follow a king who murdered his own wives, when you can follow the king of kings ?

[bls]

An atomic bomb? That's really unbelievable.

If the Anglican Communion should fall into the sea, nobody will be the worse off for it. We'll all still be Christians. Liberal Christianity will survive; conservative Christianity will survive; even Anglicanism will survive, although likely by another name (or two). We'll form alliances, fight over theology, and do good works (we hope).

Hardly anybody even knew the Anglican Communion existed a generation ago. It didn't exist 200 years ago.

If we need another one, we'll just start another one. Why all the drama over this, for heaven's sake? Let's get back to our lives and what we're supposed to be doing.

I posted this at GetReligion, but the post was immediately deleted. It's all just completely unbelievable.

[Tom Wetzel]

As an American who followed the Convention reports almost hourly throughout the 2006 session, I also find it rather surprising that the Communion Sub-Group took the ECUSA General Convention's response to Windsor in such an agreeable light. I am most surprised at how the Sub-Group report parsed the expression of regret. It read the Convention's words in much the same way that the RC Church read Pope Benedict's response to his Islamic critics: the General Convention and Benedict both "regretted" upsetting people but never actually apologized for their words and/or deeds, and both received pats on the back for such fine and generous work.

Indeed, as I think about it, the General Convention's actions have looked increasingly papal, at least in regards to the rest of the Communion. I am someone who deeply believes gays and lesbians are full members of the Communions (both Christian and Anglican), but I don't think the American way of ramming decisions down the Anglican Communion's throat is the way to speak prophetically to the world. And given the bishops' role in the Church as overseers and chief pastors, it certainly was not an especially pastoral moment either.

On the other hand, I haven't seen a great deal of good pastoring among bishops--Anglican or Roman--in the last several years. I grow rather weary of bishops who think their office is administrative rather than pastoral--and who then let themselves off from being true pastor/shepherds by instead acting like bureaucrats and/or demagogues.

Then again, I shouldn't expect much when most American Episcopalians seem to think the via media is simply to move to the center between two extremes. The via media didn't serve historically to include people; it was very much a way to EXclude Puritans and Roman Catholics. The via media is to be a Church shaped by the Bible AND the apostolic faith (and the episcopacy); it is not a way to make sure everyone has a place at the table, nor is it to revert to a reading of Scripture ignorant of the apostolic tradition of reading (which is not literalist by a long shot).

The goal then is to demonstrate to the Global South (and Americans allied with them) that for the apostolic faith and its view of Scripture, gays and lesbians are an authentic part of the Church. And for that, we cannot turn to the Bible alone: that is the Puritan answer. For Anglicans, the Bible alone is not enough, and the Global South needs to be reminded of that.

[Carol]

The Episcopal Church has not only gone merrily ahead, but has preceded full-steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. See what my previous diocese, Diocese of Olympia in Western portion of Washington State, passed in October of 2006.

The Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, meeting October 27-28 in its 96th annual Convention, called upon the Episcopal Church's bishops and standing committees to join the diocese's affirmation for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church.
The resolution (#5), detailed below, passed with 317 in favor, 79 against, and 51 abstentions.
• affirm and call upon the bishops and Standing Committee to affirm the full inclusion in all areas of the life of the Episcopal Church of "our otherwise qualified brother and sister Christians who are single or partnered heterosexual gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons, and those who are in non-celibate heterosexual relationships and those who are divorced, as well as the full inclusion of the Episcopal Church in the full life of the Anglican Communion;"
The convention did not consider a resolution which would have stated that it was the sentiment of the diocese that beginning January 2008, marriages usually performed by Episcopal clergy be presided over by an agent of the state of Washington and that marriages in the diocese be limited to the blessing of the union as a holy act and that clergy not act as an agent of the state for any form of civil marriage.
The complete texts of the resolutions are available here. http://www.olympia.anglican.org/inthenews/2006ConventionAction.cfm
The Diocese of Olympia comprises about 32,000 Episcopalians worshipping in 96 congregations in the state of Washington west of the Cascades.
Now attending one of the two churches under Recife from that diocese.
Carol

[Mike McG...]

Greetings. I just became aware of your blog courtesy of dotCommonweal and wonder if this RC might ask a question on the 'social psychology' of the current tensions within the Anglican Communion. To wit:

Is there an active middle? Is there a sense in which all those who care deeply about the Communion and engage with current controversies find themselves compelled to 'take sides' in the absence of a middle ground? More simply: Are there vocal participants who see the issues as 'close calls', who remain in the 60/40 zone, and yet remain publicly engaged?

I'm a fan of Amba, the sponsor of Ambivablog. Her invitation to conversation would capture the constituency I'm inquiring about:

"Feeling homeless? Welcome home.
Right or left? Republican or Democrat? Retro or metro? Red state or blue state? Pro-life or pro-choice? Hawk or dove? If these binary choices turn you purple, if they leave you as speechless and spluttering as 'Have you stopped beating your child yet?' or 'Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?', you're my kinda people."

"In a two-sizes-fit-all culture, you're expected to sign up for one of two prefab sets of ideas. Just pop one or the other cassette into your brain, and you're good to go on automatic. Your friends, enemies, media choices, soundtrack, opinions, political candidates, pet pundits, pat peeves, team logos, and votes are all preselected for you. America is turning into a huge Super Bowl with only two teams and fans as rabid as Brit soccer hooligans. If you're neither of the above, if you're equally turned off by knee-jerk liberals and sanctimonious conservatives, you're a misfit, and I want to know you."

reference: http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/week34/index.html

[Richard G. Elliott]

I am surprised that you give Kendall Harmon so much time and weight. He is usually one of the first to fire off a comment on any action in the church. Speed does not guarantee accuracy, and the relentless cry of "Doom" palls after a while.

His reference to the events of General Convention are tilted towards the view that the Episcopal Church was doing all in its power to avoid or subvert the Windsor Report and process. As one who was "present at General Convention" I witnessed the painful and difficult process by which we moved towards agreement, along with the machinations of both the far left and right to hinder the process.

At what had to be the last minute the deputies voted for what was possible under our own polity in urging restraint on Episcopal elections. Not everyone was happy with this, many felt they had betrayed their own principles, but they did vote for continued conversation. No vote was taken on marriage; there was no time. But, while convention acknowledges that there is a variety of practice within the American church, as there is in a number of provinces in the communion, the Episcopal Church has yet to change our liturgy and hence the heart of our belief and practice.

[David Keen]

wouldn't this all work a lot better with a complete media blackout, so that the parties present weren't constantly explaining themselves to the world at large, and the rest of us praying rather than blogging? (he says, hypocritically posting a comment)

[Doug]

When I read the Gang of Four report, I said to myself, "This is going to set Kendall Harmon off." And lo and behold, it did. And the response of RG is to give him considerable space to vent, without counter arguments being presented. This is journalism?

One might begin with his evaluation of the South Carolina episcopal election process, which I think seriously misrepresents the reasons why the candidate may be in trouble. However, the process is not complete, so we really don't know.

[Linda]

If the Windsor report was only for study and recommendation, and not understood as a directive,as the previous comment mentions, then it doesn't matter what the Anglican Communion thinks, the Episcopal Church will go on its merry way with its blinders on, and may God have mercy on our souls.

[Harry]

I am a member of an orthodox Episcopal Church in a revisionist (code word for heretic) diocese. The bishop is an enemy. She marginalized and degraded our faithful rector (before his retirement) and is now sending her own apostate interims to the parish in efforts of converting the congregation to 1) demote Christ from full diety, 2) redefine sin, excusing that which is biblical sin while chastening those who still call bibiblical sin "sin", 3) makes herself and her cronies wiser than the Apostle Paul--omiting his references to holiness, purity, righteousness, judgement, etc., while embracing the grace and mercy that Paul brought to our understanding of the gospel.

The bishop would convert us all to her unChristian theology. Or she would drive us from the church in order to silence any opposition. Either way, we loose.

Help! Orthodox parishes like ours need alternate oversight, and we need it now. 1/3 of ECUSA has already left. 20% from '85 to '95. When numbers come in for '06 and '07, the losses will be staggering.

Does anyone care? Can the universal church do anything? Please, don't serve us anymore Anglican fudge. Paul said, if they preach a different gospel (and they are), let them be accursed (excommunicated). Do it. Do it now.

Oh Pharaoh, let my people go--and send them forth with their silver and their gold.

[Shawn+]

Ruth,

You'd be surprised at who reads your blog! I am a whole-hearted liberal, definitely in the camp of radical inclusiveness, and I read you, Kendall, and even David Virtue. Why? Because I believe that the Holy Spirit is singing in the multiplicity of voices, and what appears as dissonance may actually be a new kind of harmony. I'm glad you don't think like me--there must be some center to the pendulum's swing. That is what Via Media means to me.

[Ellie in T.O.]

"Those who are trying to create a uniformity bound by Authority and Law are the ones who are trying to change the nature of the Anglican Communion, not those who are exercising the autonomy always enjoyed by individual Provinces."

Those in the liberal camp keep offering this argument, yet TEC's fiercely punitive actions against its own dissenting parishes give the lie to their talk of "fellowship" and "diversity."

It has been made abundantly clear this past year that the leadership of TEC considers itself an infallible authority and demands unquestioning obedience from its flock -- or else.

[Phil]

Ruth, the sub-Committee report is hard news. The reaction from the Primates' Meeting, when it comes, will be hard news. Comments on blogs and from outsiders are not hard news.

Let's not give them equal weight, eh?

To my mind, you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that "It is interesting that Elizabeth Paver is a highly-respected General Synod member but extremely orthodox and an opponent even of the ordination of women priests. If she is on the group and the group has decreed that TEC has passed muster, I reckon that is pretty significant."

The sub-committee report is signed off by a hardline Global South Archbishop, by a hardline western liberal Archbishop, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by the liberal Secretary General and by two laypeople who are definitely on the conservative side.

The fact that they have all agreed amongst themselves, unanimously, to give the US the benefit of the doubt for the time being is very, very significant, precisely because of the full range of the people doing this. The fact that conservative bloggers and commenters don't like it only makes it more striking that ALL the people who matter, from all parts of the spectrum, are trying to hold the whole thing together. They aren't chucking people out, or saying they will walk out. The outsiders who have given up and won't be satisfied unless the conservatives crush the liberals are not the people making the decisions.

I'm sure Akinola has a different view. But we have seen before that, when he claims to speak for the Global South as a bloc, one by one other Global South Primates say they don't, in fact, agree with what he says and how he says it. They are much more cautious and unity minded than he is, even if they are (on the whole) just as conservative.

Let's hold that thought! And I really hope that whatever you put in tomorrow's paper reflects that.

[Richard Tumillty]

All the talk about "full inclusion" misses the point. Every baptized person is by definition fully included in the Body of Christ. The controversy is not over inclusion but personal morality. Some people, because of their behavior, are not eligible for the other sacraments, e.g. ordination. The focus must be on sexual behavior, not
"inclusion" as such. The liberals keep talking about "inclusion" but refuse to face the biblical sanction against sexual activity outside marriage.

[Marshall Scott]

I am waiting on greater comment on the last paragraph:

"We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. This report has been concerned with the response by the Episcopal Church to that Report. We understand that the Anglican Church of Canada is in the process of preparing its response. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far."

This would seem to speak to issues of crossing provincial boundaries and of establishing a "listening process" in all our Provinces. We may get an additional study group after the next meeting of the Anglican Church of Canada, when they can be expected to address issues arising in New Westminster. Might we also see a study group addressing these latter issues, based on this last paragraph?

[Warrior]

If the Episcopal Church USA is not seriously disciplined you might as well kiss the Anglican Communion goodbye. The Global South will depart for their own survivial in the Muslim conflict they find themselves in and no other orthodox ecumencial body will ever take Anglicans seriously again. That will be the end of ARCIC and any fellowship with Rome, Eastern Orthodox, etc... In this case, fortunately, God's protective hand will be removed and the whole mess will implode of its own rot. We will be a sign like Ichabod to the rest of the mainline denominations who are contemplating our folly.

[chip]

Wow! Even the Archbishop had publicly commented that TEC's response was inadequate. If a second American province is not formed/existence blessed this time then it will be very interesting to see if the TEC approves the new SC Bishop. If it doesnt - I think the network Bishops will secede anyway. My guess is that Jefforts Shori will lean on her people to see that SC is approved by a narrow majority. The next test will be how soon a leftwing Diocese tests the waters by electing a practicing homosexual as Bishop - probably one month after Lambeth.

[Dennis]

What are you rightwingers complaining about? The Episcopal Church gets to stay because it showed that it was willing to kick the gays a few times to make you happy. Sorry that the Episcopal Church has not called for work camps for gay and lesbian Christians to be set up for reeducation or worse. I know you won't be happy until you see such things. But this report gives you what you wanted: one more thing to keep the gays and lesbians marginalized and our relationships unrecognized by our church. When will you be happy, really? When the church calls for us to be burned at the stake? Rightwingers always scream when they are called homophobes. Well have you ever earned it this time. You have hijacked a church instrument of unity to force our church to say uncle and agree to not bless our relationships or ordain gays. Nice work. Nice Christian work. Your generation will have killed off the church in future years because upcoming generations will associate Christianity with your brand of hate. Good going. Jesus must be proud of you.

[Douglas Simonsen]

One of the least commented-upon aspects of the Communion Sub-Group report is this single line, buried on the last of seven pages of text:

"We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far."

In the midst of the hand-wringing over the adequacy of TEC's response to the Windsor Report, this is one of a precious few acknowledgements that the report also called for an expression of regret, an affirmation of the "desire to remain in the Communion," and a "moratorium on any further interventions," from those primates and bishops who have violated provincial and diocesan boundaries in their zeal to impose their own version of orthodoxy upon TEC.

One can only hope that this is not the last we will hear on this subject.

[Mike]

I disagree strongly with the whole nature of this discussion. The Windsor Report has been offerred for study, not for compliance. The Windsor Report made recommendations, not mandates. It was authored by a group which included people from many diverse perspectives in the communion. We cannot allow Kendall Harmon and others of his persuasion to dominate the debate on Windsor. The "conservative" or the "orthodox" do not get to determine what "compliance" means, nor whether all of the various committees, panels, bishops and the like are doing their jobs.

[William R]

One suspects that the faction allied with Peter Akinola (including the American conservatives) is so unyielding in their viewpoint and demands -- and why not when you've heard the very Word of the Lord? -- that the only remaining options are (a) remove the American church from the Communion or (b) the conservatives will remove themselves from the Communion.

While one is reluctant to draw too many verities from the blogs, whose correspondents tend toward the -- shall we say? -- excitable, it appears from the frenzied rhetoric that the pro-split forces will seize upon any phrase or sentence uttered in Tanzania that affirms their momentum towards the exits and ignore or decry the rest.

It remains to be seen whether a corresponding emotional investment in schism is present among the primates, but, in the blogosphere, any reconcilation or delay in spanking the naughty Episcopalians will be considered a crushing defeat if not open persecution by the forces of darkness.

Behold how these Christians loathe each other.

I'm just thankful they no longer control the state apparatus in most countries (the USA possibly excepted), so the rest of us will be spared a fate as cannon fodder in the open warfare that historically results when people to whom God talks find themselves in disagreement.

A plague on all their houses!

[NBS]

The report was sickening. How anyone could believe it accurately reflects the situation in the US, or what happened at the general convention last summer is a mystery to me.

It is sickening, just sickening.

[Jeffersonian]

If you wish to remain in the Anglican Communion, be aware that it means precisely nothing. You can be an orthodox, God-fearing soul, a tom-tom-thumping Unitarian or even a committed denier of every aspect of Christ's divinity...it's all the same to the AC.

AC, RIP.

[Phil]

Ruth, if the Archbishop of Central Africa and the Archbishop of Wales, among others, have thrashed out agreement on this, why do you think that Kendall Harmon's view from the outside means that things are even worse than they were before?

(rg writes: you know, I am myself uncertain as to whether things are worse or better than before. As my frequent updatings to this post this evening must illustrate. Like everyone, I am waiting to see what the reaction to this is - Kendall's was just the first reaction of many that I am sure will be coming soon. But he is a pretty authoritative source of the mood in the conservative camp, so he must be given some credibility for that alone. Everyone's view on this, mine included, is 'from the outside', even those journalists actually in Dar es, because no-one at all is being allowed any proper access, which is one of the main reasons I didn't go. I figured I could cover it just as well from London, given the new technologies here and the lack of wireless in the White Sands hotel.)

[Frank Schnittger]

The "the proper constraints of the bonds of affection" is a strange phrase to use in a theological context. On the one hand it could be construed as proper concern for the feelings of others, but on the other, it is too close to emotional blackmail for comfort: "Do what I say or I won't love you anymore!"

However it does confirm that the Anglican Communion is a fellowship where relationships between its constituent Churches are all important and not some kind of over-arching theological orthodoxy.

If you want a Communion with a disciplined organisational approach to theological orthodoxy, join the Roman Catholic Church. If you want to remain an Anglican, you have to accept that the fellowship includes a range of theological approaches not all of which may be to your liking or consistent with each other.

The bigger question is what happens next. It looks like a classic Anglican fudge may be in the making for the time being, but what happens when another dioceses gets fed up with endless moratoriums and discussions which have been going on inconclusively since 1978?

Are the primatial parents going to say to the errant child Province: ”There you go again, upsetting people, now stop it at once!” Who defines what represents unacceptable behaviour, and what authority do the parental Primates actual have in this case?

A Fellowship is by definition a community bound by friendships rather than by law or obedience to a supreme authority. Those who are trying to create a uniformity bound by Authority and Law are the ones who are trying to change the nature of the Anglican Communion, not those who are exercising the autonomy always enjoyed by individual Provinces.

[Henry Hereford]

Worryingly indeed. Looks like I'll have to find a home amongst the Orthodox or the RCs.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Ruth Gledhill does it again. First with the news and the best reporting. Thats what growing up in Llanyblodwel Vicarage does for you.A unique insight into the Anglian Communion.

Robert