ESPRIT: Was this trip really necessary?

+JMS: Yes, it was necessary for the health of the communion and building relationships. In terms of work product, no, it wasn’t necessary; in fact, the conference leaders designed Lambeth so there would be no explicit work product.

+PEL: Being the new kid on the block, I had no expectations. My paradigm-shift wasn’t difficult because I’m a relational person anyway. This was an interesting experience to see how people sorted out and shifted gear into relational stuff.

ESPRIT: What did you learn about the 21st century Anglican Communion?

+JMS: As a whole, I would say that the Anglican Communion remains very strong, focused on Jesus Christ and his mission, orthodox and apostolic in its faith, and — despite the tensions and problems we have in the West — most of the communion is very vibrant and, in fact, is quite a source of life and witness around the world.

+PEL: One of the things that struck me is how catholic the Anglican Communion is in terms of its ecclesiology. If I heard it one time, I heard it a thousand times from my brothers and sisters around the world — how important it is for us to be in communion, and that’s a very catholic concept. I also think Anglicanism in the 21st century is realistic. Nobody, from the Global South particularly, had any illusions about the difficulties we face. One of the great learning experiences, particularly for those in the West, is to listen to those from the Global South be quite frank about how our actions have hurt them and their churches. But they’re coming from a position of love, not judgment.

ESPRIT: Were you able to witness for the faith and the diocese?

+JMS: Oh, yes, I think so. In terms of both our Bible study groups, our indaba groups, and our general relationships with people. It was renewing many friendships from the past and creating new friendships, new relationships.

+PEL: Whenever you sat down to eat, people would engage you in conversation about where you are, where you come from, and eventually go into where you are theologically, and I think they were pretty well assured about us.

ESPRIT: What about those indabas — those group sessions of bishops based on the African model of community discussion to work out problems? How did they function?

+JMS: Indaba, in African terms, presupposes natural community, and of course, the Lambeth Conference is not a natural community. We have to build community. So I’m not sure the indaba process was the best way to do that, but it was a good process for getting people to talk with each other. Many of those who are intimidated by speaking in large legislative bodies don’t have any problem speaking in small groups. So it really got more people talking with each other on an equal footing than having large plenary sessions would have done. And I think, from that perspective, it was a good process.

+PEL: I would agree with you. I think if it didn’t work, it’s because, as
Bishop Stanton said, it presumes community. The first three or four days, we spent a lot of time developing that community before we could really get into discussing some of the major issues. And it gave voice to some of the folks that would never say anything. When we did have the plenary sessions, the Americans hogged the microphones, and the rest of the community did not fail to notice that. The message got back to our house: you Americans are so arrogant; you think people want to listen to you. And all of a sudden, you see this backing off from Americans.

ESPRIT: Talk a little about the Archbishop of Canterbury. How would you appraise his performance?

+PEL: It was clear to me that he went in to Lambeth with his own subliminal agenda. He said that Lambeth 1.10 (the 1998 resolution affirming heterosexual monogamy) was still the standard for understanding marriage and sexuality in the Anglican Communion. At one local occasion, he was very engaging. I got my picture taken with him as the newest bishop in the Anglican Communion. I was also able to talk to him about the covenant process. I told him I really hoped he would encourage dioceses and/or provinces to sign off on it, so we could be in communion with him. He said, “That’s what I want, too.”

+JMS: His presidential address — all the things he said — he did masterfully. He is a theologian. He was cogent. He was forceful. And so I think he did a lot of good there. I was a bit surprised that he was not more available. It didn’t seem to me that he was out and about. That may be entirely subjective. Otherwise, I think he gave great guidance to the process.

ESPRIT: Lowest moment?

+JMS: It wasn’t as if there were some sad events, but I tell you, the lowest moment was when my indaba met for the first time, and we all realized there were no Africans due to the boycott of Lambeth by about 250 bishops, most from the Global South. Ten years ago, Africans were present in large numbers. We built many relationships, and many of my closest friends were not present this year.

+PEL: The second Sunday we were there, I was just tired, worn out. I wanted to be able to get with my wife, go some place, and just be alone. I’m a people person, but there’s only so much a people person can take! I wanted to disengage.

ESPRIT: Highest moment?

+PEL: The procession the first Sunday we were there in our rochets and chimeres at the opening Mass. Words can’t express how I felt ascending those 150 steps going up into the choir and then back to the high altar. To me, that was the high point. It was just overwhelming.

+JMS: The same thing. It hit me again after 10 years that this was undoubtedly the high point, because we were at our best when we were at worship. We have the tradition. It’ more than just theory; it’s reality. We were together as a community, in communion. Historically and spiritually, that was very rich.

+PEL: Another high point for me had to be the Bible study sessions we had. We developed a real community very quickly, and I didn’t want to miss it.

ESPRIT: So where from here?

+JMS: It depends much on the will of the Communion. Bishops acting unilaterally do not help this. The future of the Communion depends on those who are willing to forgo what they perceive to be their rights and their prerogatives and agree to live with and for others. We’ve been deaf to that call. It just depends on the will of those who are in leadership and who say, you know, the time has come to work together in unity. As far as I’m concerned as diocesan bishop, we have strong ties and relationships with the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Global South. The Global South bishops invited both Bishop Paul and me to a meeting with them. We cherish those relationships, and we will continue to witness and carry out our part in the Anglican Communion.

+PEL: I don’t know how I can expand upon that. We need to be faithful to the Scriptures and our Lord’s command to go forth into the world, but one of the things I’m trying to live into is what it means to be faithful to the vows I took when I was consecrated. There are some significant vows there. I think the House of Bishops and all bishops would do well to read those every day.

+JMS: It’s hard to know exactly what happened there until — it’s one of those odd things. It’s hard to know what happened at the meeting until you get well beyond it.

+PEL: It’s not unlike Jacob wrestling with God at Peniel (Gen. 32:30). He didn’t know it was God until after the fact. And that’s what sometimes happens during crises. You live into that crisis and do the wrestling — and we did some. I mean, it wasn’t all fun and games. Some hard things were said in those indaba groups.

+JMS: I like that. And I can think of Moses’ supporters saying to Moses after he had gone up on Sinai, “What happened?” We’ll see. It’s sort of the nature of God. God says to Moses, “I will be with you. That’s my name.” That’s all we can do — live in faith that God will be faithful. 

A Pastoral Response to ST Article “Anglican leader on gays and marriage”, published on 8th August 2008

Some of you may have read the article, “Anglican leader on gays and marriage” published in the Straits Times (ST, Singapore) on 8th August 2008. It is necessary that the following clarifications be made to address any possible concerns, confusion or misperception.

The ST article was a report on the news by The Times (UK) on 7th August 2008, which was released almost immediately after the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference on 3rd August. It is regrettable that these letters, written in private correspondence some eight years ago, gives the impression that it is a fresh statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views. His theological viewpoints on this issue were not totally unknown in the public arena then.

Whatever his personal views may be on the subject, the Archbishop has since made a press statement on 8th August which states, “I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution 1.10 (which views homosexual practice as incompatible with Scriptures) of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and this as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.” As the ST article rightly reported, the Archbishop of Canterbury “recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position” at the recent 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The Diocese of Singapore, in its teaching on biblical faith and order, is firmly committed to this orthodox position on sexual ethics. I need to express as clearly as I possibly can; that what the church here believes (in essential beliefs and moral ethics) needs to be taught and upheld personally and publicly by all our clergy, lay leaders and members of the Diocese. While we can continue to discuss the pastoral challenges on the ground, we need to remain faithful to the teaching of the Church by virtue of the trust committed to us by the Lord and our love for our fellow human being

We believe and hold that the Bible is clear and authoritative in bearing witness to God’s will regarding human sexuality; namely that sexual relations are to be expressed only within the life-long union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. All forms of sexual promiscuity, including homosexual practices, between men or women, as well as heterosexual relationships outside marriage are incompatible with the divine vision and design of human life. The Bible describes them as sinful practices that are contrary to God’s good purposes. They dehumanise God’s image in humanity and need to be repented of. At the same time, we hold that there is divine grace of forgiveness, healing and transformation for all who repent of homosexual or other illicit forms of sexual practice. We do not condone inhuman and unsocial acts against homosexuals nor do we discriminate against them. Rather, we extend to them God’s love, compassionate ministry and true freedom through Jesus Christ.

As part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, we have consistently registered our commitment to the Church’s historic and orthodox teaching on human sexuality, as contained in the Kuala Lumpur’s Statement on Human Sexuality (1997) and Resolution I.10 of Lambeth Conference (1998).  Consequently, we together with our fellow-Dioceses in the Province of Southeast Asia have declared that our communion with The Episcopal Church (TEC) of USA is impaired, following TEC’s ordination of a man in active gay relationship as a bishop in 2003. To date, he is not recognised as a bishop by either our Church or the Communion. Also, our Diocesan stand on human sexuality is fully consonant with the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) Statement on Homosexuality published in July 2003.

The Anglican Church of Singapore as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” church believes that it is duty bound to discharge a divine trust and to express life-authenticating love for our fellow-man and woman by holding to the pattern of life (including matters of sexual ethics) as prescribed in the Bible and ministering to all who are broken and marred by sin with the grace of Jesus Christ. We remain fully committed to the well-being of our society which has been built on time-tested values, including the sanctity of marriage and the holistic bonds of the family institution, both of which are greatly at risk today.

The Most Revd Dr John Chew
The Bishop of Singapore
The Diocese of Singapore (Anglican)
15 August, 2008
http://www.anglican.org.sg

By Andrew Carey, CEN

At the recent Lambeth Conference I had a couple of conversations with so-called ‘conservative’ Americans, both amongst the press and the bishops. I was even able to give the Bishop of Springfield (no relation to ‘The Simpsons’) some pointers on the rules of cricket as we snatched five minutes in the bar to watch England being clinically defeated by South Africa.

Their depressing and urgent situation in The Episcopal Church becomes ever clearer over time, despite all of the efforts of their liberal church leaders to try and persuade the rest of the Anglican Communion that really we’re just like you. Close watchers of the US, and readers of this newspaper, will be more aware than most of the state of that Church. Heterodoxy is never punished, whereas orthodox impatience is the subject of lawsuits all over the country. And the amount of heterodoxy uttered in The Episcopal Church is truly astonishing. Even leaving aside the virtual atheism of Bishop Spong’s ‘Twelve Theses’, we’ve had bishops claim that the church can ‘re-write the Bible’, others make sweeping apologies for Christian mission to those of other faiths, while the Presiding Bishop views Jesus as just one way among many.

Furthermore, they’ve had scandals the likes of which would destroy the Church of England in the eyes of the world, with our much more effective national press conducting the funeral rites. They’ve had thrice-divorced bishops, a child-abusing bishop, as well as one who’s covered up sex abuse by his brother, a priest. There’s been a drug-dealing priest, others who’ve been exposed in a pornographic magazine for engaging in bizarre sex with Brazilians. This is truly only the tip of the iceberg. Any one or two of these cases would have been a national scandal in Britain, in the US it’s only a few column inches.

With whole parishes and dioceses deserting the national Church amid such widespread heterodoxy and scandal, followed by a wave of litigation and squabbling over property, it’s impossible to see The Episcopal Church as anything other than a disaster area. If there ever was a Church under the judgment of God, it is this one.

By Canon Neal Michell

To download a PDF version of this document for easy sharing via email, click here

August 25, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We the undersigned contributors to Covenant-Communion.com believe that “a word in time” is now needed in order to assist the Communion to move forward in a constructive manner following the Lambeth Conference. We would like to speak such a word by specifically addressing the points Bishop Bob Duncan raises in his email to Bishop Gary Lillibridge, which has now been made public with Bp. Duncan’s permission. Our reflections are offered with all due respect for Bishop Duncan as a dear friend to some of us, and one whom those of us who know him personally admire as a stalwart in the faith. Bishop Duncan’s words are quoted in italics with our reflections following.

1. The first difficulty is the moral equivalence implied between the three moratoria, a notion specifically rejected in the original Windsor Report and at Dromantine.

Actually, it is largely American and Canadian liberals that have implied a moral equivalency between the two. We think most people are clear that the crisis in our Communion was precipitated by specific American and Canadian actions. In any event, someone has to be the first to give up their “rights” (either Bishop Duncan and the GAFCON folks by agreeing to moratorium #3 in clear terms, or the American and Canadian leadership by agreeing to moratoria #1 and #2, as well as an immediate cessation of the lawsuits and ecclesiastical trials). Who will be the first to display an act of Christian charity and self-giving on behalf of the Communion at this critical turning point in the life of the Communion?

Our understanding of the comments from the Windsor Continuation Group hearings at the Lambeth Conference is that no one really expects the jurisdictional crossings to cease without the concomitant cessation of blessing same sex unions and assurances of refusal to consent to the consecration of a bishop in a same sex relationship.

2. This process cannot be stopped — constitutions require an automatic second vote, and to recommend against passage without guarantees from the other side would be suicidal.

We recognize the canonical difficulties this presents. A constitutional change requires a second vote in the following year or the proposed constitutional change fails for lack of a second reading. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury can change this requirement. Further, we understand that these dioceses are fearful of further legal repercussions that a delay would entail.

We suggest this is such a crucial issue that Dr. Williams convene a meeting, preferably in person, by September 30th, to work through an agreement on the assurances of the moratoria as well as the “safe haven” for those in the American and Canadian churches who feel the need for protection. We respectfully submit that this meeting be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and include the bishops of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, the primate of Uganda, the primate of the Southern Cone, the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the chair of the Windsor Continuation Group, and perhaps two bishops agreed to by all other parties. This meeting should be held at a neutral site without attorneys present. Such a meeting would acknowledge the urgency of the matters under consideration and give an opportunity to the parties to work through the implementation of the moratoria requested.

3. The third reality is that those already separated parishes and missionary jurisdictions . . . will never consent to the “holding tank” whose stated purpose is eventual “reconciliation” with TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada.

This complaint presupposes that TEC and Canada will continue undisciplined in their acts that have “torn the fabric of the Communion.” The goal is the restoration of good order in the Church that would make possible deeper relationships in Christ. We envision an Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada that are fully reconciled to the rest of the Anglican Communion through commitment to a freely entered into Covenant. We believe this goal is possible given patience and perseverance, even if it must be accomplished diocese by diocese, and in some places, parish by parish. This reconciliation would include a common life that would respect (i) the principle of communion as the limit of autonomy as articulated by the Windsor Report (para. 82) as well as (ii) Lambeth Resolutions and other official acts of the Instruments of Communion that have come to serve as boundary markers in our mutually shared discernment.

The “holding tank”— “safe haven” might be a more accurate and positive description—would be the basis for these dioceses and congregations to continue as full members of the Anglican Communion without fear of legal or ecclesiastical reprisals. Recall Dr. Williams’ ecclesiological statement that provinces are not primary units but secondary to the direct relationship between each diocesan bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a “safe haven” would provide each diocese and congregation with a direct relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury, not through the provincial primate.

There is a difference, in our view, between being culturally Anglican and being ecclesiologically Anglican. An ecclesiological Anglican relates directly to the Archbishop of Canterbury through his or her own bishop and not through the primate. A cultural Anglican uses the Anglican forms and formularies, rites and ceremonies, but does not have that direct ecclesiological relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Why settle for an uncertain connection with +Canterbury through an intervening province when one can have a direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury—as evidenced, among other things, by a decennial invitation to Lambeth?

4. The fourth matter is that the legal proceedings brought by TEC and ACC against many of us have been nowhere suspended by these aggressor provinces, with no willingness to mediate or negotiate though we have proposed it repeatedly, not least since Dar es Salaam.

We recognize the validity of this complaint, hence, the need for an immediate meeting between the principals proposed above. Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” made the comment that if we all live by “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” the whole world will soon be blind and toothless.

We believe some pressure has to be brought to bear on the American Church at such a meeting to stop the legal proceedings. The reason for withdrawing the lawsuits is for the sake of fostering relationships which are of utmost importance in Anglicanism. The rationale is: “I give up my ‘right’ to sue this church/diocese for the sake of the possibility of reconciliation. I acknowledge the ‘safe haven’ as a place of integrity within the Communion until we can work out our differences, regardless of however long it might take.”

Ultimately, we think, the issue is whether one wants to be a cultural Anglican with either an attenuated or no direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, with relationships and recognition of Holy Orders, Communion, etc., having to be negotiated diocese by diocese, or an ecclesiological Anglican with a direct relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, with relationships and Holy Orders, etc., being much clearer. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Anglicans certainly prefer the latter, and are willing to do those things necessary to preserve the unity of the Communion on the appropriate basis.

Faithfully,

The Rev’d Canon Neal Michell
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d George Willcox Brown III
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d Anthony F. M. Clavier
Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rev’d Daniel K. Dunlap
Diocese of Texas

The Rev’d Joseph B. Howard
Diocese of Tennessee

The Rev’d Nathan J.A. Humphrey
Diocese of Washington

The Rev’d Richard Kew
Diocese of Tennessee

The Rev’d Canon Dr. Graham Kings
Vicar, St. Mary’s Islington (Church of England)

The Rev’d Daniel H. Martins
Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rev’d Dorsey McConnell
Diocese of Massachusetts

The Very Rev’d Dr. Jean McCurdy Meade
Diocese of Louisiana

The Rev’d Matthew S. C. Olver
Diocese of Dallas

The Rev’d Dr. Ephraim Radner
Diocese of Colorado

The Rev’d Bruce M. Robison
Diocese of Pittsburgh

Mr. Dale A. Rye
Diocese of Texas

Mr. Dave Sims
Diocese of Dallas

Mr. Craig Uffman
Diocese of Northern Indiana

Mr. Christopher Wells
Diocese of Northern Indiana

Tuesday 26 August 2008

As the Lambeth Conference of 2008 comes to an end, I want to offer some further reflections of my own on what the bishops gathered in Canterbury have learned and experienced.  Those of you who have been present here will be able to share your own insights with your people, but it may be useful for me to add my own perspectives as to where we have been led.

For the vast majority of bishops, it seems, this has been a time when they have felt God to have been at work.  The Conference was not a time for making new laws or for binding decisions; in spite of the way some have expressed their expectations, Lambeth Conferences have never worked straightforwardly in this way.  The Conference Design Group believed strongly that the chief need of our Communion at the moment was the rebuilding of relationships – the rebuilding of trust in one another – and of confidence in our Anglican identity.  And it was with this in mind that they planned for a very different sort of Conference, determined to allow every bishop’s voice to be heard and to seek for a final outcome for which the bishops were genuinely able to recognize an authentic account of their own work.

I believe that the Conference succeeded in doing this to a very remarkable degree – more than most people expected.  At the end of our time together, many people, especially some of the newer bishops, said that they had been surprised by the amount of convergence they had seen.  And there can be no doubt that practically all who were present sincerely wanted the Communion to stay together.

But they also recognized the challenge in staying together and the continuing possibility of further division.  As the proposals for an Anglican Covenant now go forward, it is still possible that some will not be able to agree; there was a clear sense that some sort of covenant will help our identity and cohesion, although the bishops wish to avoid a legalistic or juridical tone.  A strong majority of bishops present agreed that moratoria on same-sex blessings and on cross-provincial interventions were necessary, but they were aware of the conscientious difficulties this posed for some, and there needs to be a greater clarity about the exact expectations and what can be realistically implemented.  How far the intensified sense of belonging together will help mutual restraint in such matters remains to be seen.  But it can be said that few of those who attended left without feeling they had in some respects moved and changed. 

We were conscious of the absence of many of our colleagues, and wanted to express our sadness that they felt unable to be with us and our desire to build bridges and restore our fellowship.  We were aware also of the recent meeting in Jerusalem and its statements; many of us expressed a clear sense of affinity with much that was said there and were grateful that many had attended both meetings, but we know that there is work to do to bring us closer together and are determined to do that work. 

The final document of Conference Reflections is not a ‘Report’ in the style of earlier Conferences, but an attempt to present an honest account of what was discussed and expressed in the ‘indaba’ groups which formed the main communal work of the Conference by the Reflections Group.  But although this document is not a formal Report, it has a number of pointers as to where the common goals and assumptions are in the Communion.  Let me mention some of these.

First, there was an overwhelming unity around the need for the Church to play its full part in the worldwide struggle against poverty ignorance and disease.  The Millennium Development Goals were repeatedly stressed, and there was universal agreement that both governmental and non-governmental development agencies needed to create more effective partnerships with the churches and to help the churches increase and improve their own capacity to deliver change for the sake of justice.  To further this, it was agreed that we needed a much enhanced capacity in the Communion for co-ordinated work in the field of development.  Our Walk of Witness in London and the memorable address of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom formed a powerful focus for these concerns.  And the challenge to every bishop to identify clear goals for developing environmentally responsible policies in church life was articulated very forcefully indeed: information was provided to all about how the ‘carbon footprint’ of the Conference itself might be offset, and new impetus given to careful and critical self-examination of all our practices.  We were reminded by first-hand testimony that the literal survival of many of our most disadvantaged communities was at risk as a result of environmental change.  This enabled us to see the issue more clearly as one of justice both to God’s earth and to God’s people

Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions.  There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved.  In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a ‘Pastoral Forum’ as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions.

Importantly, it was recognized that all these matters involved serious reflection on the Christian doctrine of human nature and a continuing deepening of our understanding of Christian marriage.  A joint session with bishops and spouses also reminded us that broader moral issues about power and violence in relations between men and women needed attention if we were to speak credibly to the tensions and sufferings of those we serve.

Third, there was a general desire to find better ways of managing our business as a Communion.  Many participants believed that the indaba method, while not designed to achieve final decisions, was such a necessary aspect of understanding what the questions might be that they expressed the desire to see the method used more widely – and to continue among themselves the conversations begun in Canterbury.  This is an important steer for the meetings of the Primates and the ACC which will be taking place in the first half of next year, and I shall be seeking to identify the resources we shall need in order to take forward some of the proposals about our structures and methods.

The Conference was richly blessed in its guest speakers, who all testified to their appreciation of the Anglican heritage, while asking us searching questions about how flexible and creative our evangelistic policies were, about the integration of our social passion with our theology and about the nature of the unity we were seeking both within the Anglican Communion and with other Christian families.  Our many ecumenical representatives played a full and robust part in all our work together and we owe them a considerable debt.

Finally and most importantly of all, we were held within an atmosphere of steady and deep prayer by our Chaplaincy Team.  The commitment of the Conference members to daily worship was impressive; and this has much to do with the quality of that worship, both in moments of profound quiet and in exuberant celebration.  It mattered greatly that we were able to begin with a period of retreat in the context of Canterbury Cathedral; the welcome we received there was immensely generous and we all valued the message clearly given, that this was our Cathedral, and that all of us were a full part of the worshipping community that had been here since Augustine came to Canterbury in 597.

I know that all present would wish me to express thanks once again to all who planned and organized the Conference, to those who composed the Bible Studies, those who devised and monitored the work of the indaba groups and all others who served us so devotedly in all sorts of ways – not least the Stewards, whose youthful energy and commitment and unfailingly supportive presence gave all of us great hope for the future. Thanks to all of you – bishops and spouses – who attended, for the great commitment shown and for the encouragement you have given each other.

But together we give thanks to God for his presence with us, his faithfulness to us and his gifts to our Communion.  As was said in the closing plenary session, we believe that God has many more gifts to give to and through our Communion; and we ask his grace and assistance in teaching us how to receive what he wills to give.  “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness.” (2 Cor. 9v10)

Your servant in Christ

+Rowan Cantuar:

David Anderson, American Anglican Council: May I submit, from my own position far down the ecclesial food chain, that there is no longer theological space to be an orthodox bishop of the church and privately believe that which is contrary to what the Church teaches on core doctrine and moral discipline. To do so becomes, in the most benign situation, a form of mental illness where the individual experiences a bifurcation of mind, and in more extreme form, a spiritual illness representing a foot in each Kingdom. This time in the life of the Christian and Anglican Church calls for a clear mind aligned with and fully embracing the core teachings of the Christian faith, reformed and catholic. Full Stop. Read the rest here

Paul Richardson, Religious Intelligence: Even if the Communion overcomes the immediate causes of division it will be important to address the underlying factors. Part of the problem is that, while bright young Catholic students, whether they be Thomists, liberation theologians, or Augustinians, all flock to Rome to study, Anglicans study in different parts of the Communion and, for the most part, read different texts. Read the rest here.

THE ANGLICAN Communion must prepare for “an orderly” separation if differences cannot be healed, claims the Bishop of Winchester (pictured). In a report addressed to his diocese relaying his reflections on the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had three realistic options ahead of him after the next Primates meeting in 2009.

Firstly, Dr Williams will need to judge “whether there is a will for the Anglican Communion to go forward together in our Lord’s service,” claimed the Bishop. Secondly there existed the “terrifyingly difficult decision” of negotiating “an orderly separation”. And finally there is the looming possibility of watching a “more destructive separation take place around him.”

During the Lambeth Conference the Bishop told The Sunday Telegraph that the Archbishop’s plan to maintain unity 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.”

Following the Conference, his document this week has confirmed to him the likely option of separation. Ideally the separation would mean one large “orthodox” majority which stayed faithful to the See of Canterbury. The church would then maintain “some defined relationship with a ‘separated’ and more ‘liberal’ Communion of Churches centred on The Episcopal Church.”

He added that much depended on “the Gafcon Primates and the rest of the ‘Global South’ quickly mending the relationships between them that have been put at risk.”

He said it was therefore important for the Gafcon primates, who boycotted Lambeth, to ensure that they attended the forthcoming Primates’ Meeting.

But Fr Geoffrey Kirk, of Forward in Faith, was sceptical of that approach. He said that the idea that the opposing factions in the communion might talk at the next Primates’ Meeting was highly improbable.

“The thing that shocked me most while at Gafcon was just how angry some of the African bishops are,” Fr Kirk said.

He added: “Bishop Scott-Joynt is rapidly moving into a position where he will be regarded as an extremist. The fact is he is an absolute centralist.”

Meanwhile, the Rev Rod Thomas of Reform said: “I would hope there is a growing desire in the Communion for churches to align themselves with the Gafcon statement, so that those who can’t subscribe separate themselves from the Communion.”

We have also made some necessary changes to the article in question.

Read the rest here