Expect only light percipitation over the holiday weekend.

Judi Greene died unexpectedly last weekend. She was Bishop Chane's verger and liturgical assistant, and had worked in a number of parishes in our diocese. She also had many friends at the National Cathedral.

Here is some of what Washington Times columnist Adrienne Washington had to say:

"Judi," as she was known to those fortunate to come into contact with her quick tongue, wit and infectious laughter, suffered a heart attack in her Northwest home Friday. She had turned 62 this month.
"Judi was a daughter of Washington," D.C. Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp said during the presentation of a council proclamation honoring her neighbor.
Note that the standing-room-only congregation had as many white clerical collars as the Virginia Theological Seminary's cafeteria at lunchtime.
Mrs. Cropp recalled that when her family moved to the District, Judi "came across the street and brought rolls and gossip and we became fast friends."
Bishop Chane called her "a pistol of a woman" -- all 4 feet 10 inches of her.
But no one ever dared mistake her size for her stature.
"We all have Judi stories," said Bishop Chane, noting that he spent more time with her than anyone else, save his wife.
During a solemn occasion when they were walking out of the Washington National Cathedral, he said, Judi stopped and reached over to Bishop Chane's wife and put the couple's hands together. That move raised some eyebrows.
"Hey, you didn't get here by yourself," he recalled her saying.

Click the "keep reading" button to read the eulogy offered by the Rev. Susan S. Keller of St. Mary Magdalene Church in Wheaton at Judi's funeral on Wednesday at St. Luke's in D. C.

Read more »

The Diocese of Central Florida has joined the list of those appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury for "alternative primatial oversight"--which Father Jake has nicknamed "ALPO."

I am still trying to understand what is being requested. People who understand the canons and constitution of our Church better than I do inform me that the Presiding Bishop doesn't exercise "oversight." The General Convention does. So in asking for alternative oversight, is one asking to get out from under the PB, or the GC. If the first, these requests seem pointless. If the second, they seem incoherent, because it is hard to understand how an organization that didn't accept the authority of the Convention could continue to be part of the Episcopal Church, as at least one or two of these dioceses seem to want to do. (And remember, I am not necessarily opposed, as many of the folks I usually agree with are, to dioceses eventually negotiating some kind of arrangement with other provinces that allows us all to move on in mission while maintaining some level of fellowship. I just truly don't understand the nature of these requests.)

Another thing that puzzles me about the appeal from Central Florida is the explicit disassociation from the resolution that General Convention passed urging “municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples” and opposing “any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.”

The confusing thing here is that Central Florida has requested alternative oversight from the Primate of a Church of which it would seem to be in significant disagreement on the issue of civil unions. The United Kingdom permits civil unions. While the Church of England has been at pains to emphasize that its acceptance of such unions does not change its traditional teaching on the nature of marriage or sexual intimacy, it does permit its clergy to enter into such unions. And it does not oppose extending to gay and lesbian partners the types of benefits enumerated in the legislation from which Central Florida has disassociated itself. (The CofE's House of Bishops' pastoral letter on this issue is here.

One blogger worth watching as the Central Florida story unfolds is the Anglican Scotist, a member of that diocese. He has posted on this issue here and here.

We have a steady diet of Anglican issues here on the blog lately. As a result I missed Sen. Barak Obama's recent sppech on people of faith in public life. Here is E. J. Dionne's take on it. And there is a good conversation going on over at Street Prophets.

The Church Times in London has an excellent editorial that begins with this imagined scenario:

IMAGINE the Provincial Synod of the Church of Nigeria. At its meeting, it first reasserts its total opposition to homosexuality. Not only will it keep the bar on priesthood and the episcopate, it will also support state discrimination against homosexual people. But then Archbishop Akinola steps in: the Church of Nigeria is part of a worldwide Communion; it is committed to Lambeth Resolution 1.10, pledging it to listen to the experience of homosexual persons. In his global travels, the Archbishop tells his Synod, he has heard that gay people are distressed by such discrimination. He therefore pleads with his Synod to put aside their deeply held convictions for the sake of the wider Church. As a result of his intervention, the Synod passes a substitute motion permitting the ordination to the priesthood and the episcopate of "those whose manner of life presents a challenge" to churchgoers in that country, i.e. gay people. For, says Archbishop Akinola, what is Christianity about if it isn't challenge?

This conceit may help to convey the magnitude of the passing of motion B033 at the US General Convention late on Wednesday of last week. ...

Visit the link to read it all.

June 29, 2006

Dear Friends:

In a story in today’s Washington Times newspaper (June 29, 2006), reporting on the election by the Nigerian Episcopal Synod of the Rev. Canon Martyn Minns as a bishop of the Church of Nigeria, it is asserted that Truro Church, Fairfax and The Falls Church, Falls Church have informed me that they plan to leave the Diocese.

I have had no such conversation with either church. In fact, I received a call today from the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, to apologize for the assertion in the story and to assure me that there is no such plan on the part of The Falls Church. I also received today an e-mail from the Rev. Martyn Minns assuring me that no such decision had been made at Truro.

The election of the Rev. Martyn Minns as a Bishop of the Church of Nigeria with oversight of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America is an affront to the traditional, orthodox understanding of Anglican Provincial Autonomy. Archbishop Akinola acknowledges as much in his letter to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. How that situation resolves itself remains to be seen. However, the request by Archbishop Akinola that Martyn be allowed to continue as rector of an Episcopal congregation while also serving as a Nigerian Bishop seems to me, at this point, to be impossible. I raised this issue with Martyn when he and I spoke yesterday.

While these and other developments around the Church are troubling, it is clear to me that the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia is focused on the mission and ministry of proclaiming the Gospel message of love and hope to a world desperate for that message.

I ask your prayers for our common life as a Church, especially as we endeavor to live into Christ’s charge to be the hands of reconciliation in the world today.

Faithfully,
Peter James Lee

from thediocese.net

Have a look at The Episcopal Church News Service's story on yesterday's developments.

It includes this:

"Dioceses and congregations, however, do not officially 'leave' the Episcopal Church simply because leaders or
any number of members depart, said the Rev. Jan Nunley, deputy for Communication at the Episcopal
Church Center in New York. 'Parishes are created by dioceses and dioceses are created by action of the
General Convention,' she said. 'People are free to leave,' but congregations and dioceses continue within
church structures.

"Nunley confirmed that the Episcopal Church's elected leadership may, if necessary, declare a diocese
vacant, and that in such a case the Presiding Bishop would call for the election of a new diocesan bishop,
among other actions."

This raises an interesting philosophical question, I think. Obviously, individuals leave churches all of the time. And I'd be surprised if any of them, whatever the duration of their membership, expected to get back money they contributed during their membership. Does the situation change if lots of people want to leave at the same time for the same reasons? Do they have rights, or perhaps a better word would be standing, as a group that they wouldn't have as individuals? There are interesting legal, ecclesiastical and theological issues here that I would love to here people's views on.

...Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, our presiding bishop-elect is on The Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning. You can listen here.

Another longish piece, much of which is hiding under the keep reading button.

Boy you get up from the computer for just a little while and all heck breaks loose. In the last three hours, the dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and South Carolina have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury for alternative primatial oversight, and the Church of Nigeria has announced that it has elected the Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia as the bishop of its North American operation.

I think Dr. Williams release yesterday of a reflection on the future of the Anglican Communion, and his outlining of a two-tiered membership system was intended to head all of this off. Obviously it didn’t.

Can we agree that the timing here is a bit suspicious? (I mean how did they know that I’d be leaving work early to pick up the kids at baseball camp?) And can we also agree that this alternative primatial oversight business is a little silly? The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church doesn’t exercise authority over dioceses. I hope that somewhere in the coverage of this publicity stunt, someone will point out that out.

I said in the post just below this one that I would be happy to see some of the dioceses that are unhappy in the Episcopal Church link up with other provinces in the course of the covenant process that the archbishop outlined yesterday. But I was assuming at the time that the parties to our potential separation would act in good faith.

This isn’t what good faith looks like.

Read more »

A longish essay on why I am guardedly optimistic about this convenant business that the Archbishop of Canterbury is proposing. Most of the piece is hiding under the "keep reading" button.

Most of the news reports and commentary on the yesterday’s reflection from the Archbishop of Canterbury have rightly focused on the proposed covenant with opt-in and opt-up mechanisms and a two-tiered membership of “constituents” and “associates.”

I don’t have a scholarly background that I can draw on in responding to this sort of proposal in abstract terms. On the one hand, I’ve been impressed by arguments from people like the Rev. Bill Carroll, who, if I am not misrepresenting his thinking, believes that covenants are bad business, and that an association of independent churches bound only by affection is the truest form of Church. On the other hand, what a mess.

Having recently returned from Columbus, I am predisposed to embrace Rowan Williams’ covenant because it seems to me to point a way out of a predicament that is exhausting the energy and diminishing the witness of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. I can’t tell whether it is the best way—Perhaps better ways will emerge as the process moves forward.—but it is certainly a way, and it is put forward by a man we’ve all been hoping would become a bit more directive in his leadership. It seems to me, therefore, that it is worth exploring.

Read more »

The Diocese of Newark today released the names of the four candidates in its upcoming episcopal election. One of the candidates, the Very Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe, Congregational Development Officer for the Diocese of California, is a gay man whose partner is also an Episcopal priest. You can read about all four candidates here.

Another gay candidate, the Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland had removed her name from consideration.

Barlowe was a candidate in the recent election in his home diocese, and didn't run well. Whether that is significant, I don't know. Sometimes a diocese decides to make a new start when a bishop leaves, and Barlowe works is on the staff of he retiring Bishop Bill Swing.

If he does get elected, I don't think he will get a sufficient number of consents from diocesan bishops and standing committees, although, of course, I could be wrong.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold is the guest today on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. The show air in the midafternon--alonga bout 3 p. m.--on most NPR outlets. But you can also listen online here.

The Rev. Frank Wade, who co-chaired the committee that handled Windsor-related resolutions at our General Convention had this to say in a presentation at St. Margaret's Church in D. C. on Sunday:

The desire for purity of thought and clarity of expression are powerful in all of us. We want our faith community and its statements to be strong so that they can support us on our faith journeys, both uphill and down. Those instincts and desires inevitably lead us into smaller and more isolated communities as we achieve such clarity by separating ourselves from conflicting views. Jesus, however, calls us away from the comforts of smallness and out onto the road toward unity through reconciliation. The Gospel calls us away from the purity and clarity of our own thinking so that greater Truth might emerge. The 75th General Convention reluctantly, painfully and haltingly responded to that call.

Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane released this statement today:

I am grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his lengthy and careful reflection on being an Anglican today, and look forward to considering this in detail.

However, I would like to stress that constant talk of schism from various quarters does not address the heart of the matter which is living with difference and otherness.

It is our nature as human beings to be diverse and therefore the modern world requires the church to deal with diversity. This reflects the unity and diversity we find within the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose image we are created.

We need to be tolerant of difference.

The Anglican Church in Southern Africa knows what it is to live with difference and otherness. We were born in conflict but, in spite of our problems and disagreements, we have agreed on the fundamentals and recognised that we are together despite our differences. You do not find us today divided into a black church and a white church, for example.

At present there is a lack of appreciation for the governing structures of the Anglican Communion. The worldwide Anglican Church is made up of autonomous provinces which make their own laws.

The Episcopal Church in the USA is one of the most democratic of our autonomous provinces. The Diocese of New Hampshire elected Bishop Gene Robinson democratically, according to their constitution and canons. The same can be said of the recent election of the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Those elections were not illegitimate within the rules of the American church which is an orderly church – as is our church in Southern Africa. There was a clear majority in favour of both candidates.

A proper understanding of how the institutional life of the Anglican Communion has served our spiritual life and ministry is fundamental to avoiding a knee-jerk resorting to talk of schism whenever any disagreements arise among us.

...please pray for the repose of the soul of Judi Greene. She was Bishop Chane's verger and liturgical assistant. Her funeral is today at St. Luke's Church in D. C.

... for Peter Gammons. He is a real gentleman, and a tender heart in a tough business.

The Associated Press is moving a story out of London by Robert Barr headlined: Leader of Anglicans urges coexistence. Contrast that with the Times of London's: Gay clergy ultimatum set to split Anglicans. Then have a look at Daniel Burke's story for Religion News Service: Williams lays out two-tier membership for Anglicans.

You can be excused for thinking that reporters one and three were not looking at the same document as number two.

Updated Wednesday morning with the Post, the NY Times and the Guardian.

I'm finding it useful to read the netire stories because even those that run with the most simplistic "split" angle have more nuanced things to say as they go along.

As always, Thinking Anglicans has an excellent round-up.

The sense I am getting from conversations with various reporters is that conservative Episcopalians are pleased with the reflection that the Archbishop of Canterbury released today. Things being what they are, they assume that liberals are therefore wailing and gnashing their teeth. Tobais S. Haller is having none of it.

Our Presiding Bishop elect, the Rt. Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori is going to be on the Diane Rehm Show at 10 AM EDT on Thursday. The show can be heard on many NPR stations. It originates from WAMU (88.5 FM) here in Washington, and I believe you can listen to it online.

Jonathan Petre of the Telegraph has the best story I've found so far on the significance of the reflection on the future of the Communion that the archbishop released this morning.

Update: the other stories I had cited here have been rewritten for later editions, and no longer contain the judgments with which I took issue.

The New York Times piece is here.

I have read the archbishop’s statement a few times. There’s much to discuss, and I think it will keep us busy for a few days. But there’s one essential point that I think might easily be missed, and I won’t to focus on it, because, alas, I think he’s got it entirely wrong.

As I read the archbishop, he, like many others, is suggesting that the struggle in the Anglican Communion is not about homosexuality but about how we make decisions in concert. To me that is similar to saying that the American Civil War was not about slavery but about states' rights. Both arguments allow you to ignore sins against humanity while you debate the nature of polity.

People say that the Communion needs structures to help it handle future controversies, such as the one over lay presidency. Maybe, but the comparison doesn't shed much light on our current situation.

Ask yourself how some parents react when they find out their children is being taught by a gay man. Now imagine that those same parents have just learned that their child is being taught by a lay person who has presided at the Eucharist?

Lay presidency may inspire disagreement, or even distaste. But it does not inspire panic or revulsion. And it does us no good to pretend that panic and revulsion do not shape this debate. I agree with the Archbishop when he says that an inability to “remain fully in communion with the [Episcopal] Church …should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people.”

But the key word there is “automatically.”

If you don’t acknowledge the widespread existence of anti-gay bigotry in the Communion, and in this country, then it is easy to portray the Episcopal Church as an impatient group that broke ranks with its more prudent, but essentially likeminded friends.

But, as the eminent theologian Aretha Franklin once asked, “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection (one item down) deserves a long and thoughtful response. This isn’t it. In this post I am mainly interested in whether you think he committed any news today.

I’d make one point.

Dr. Williams says that the communion has “some very hard work to do” to shape the covenant he is touting, and says that the next Lambeth Conference “ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.” This would seem to indicate that our bishops are going to be invited, as we can hardly be asked to sign on to a covenant that we play no role in shaping.

Agreed?

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to the Primates of the Communion in the wake of our General Convention. The text of the letter is below. The Lambeth Palace press release that accompanied it is beneath the "keep reading" button for those who want to cut to the chase. Not that I have actually found a chase to which to cut. Indeed Williams says as much:

" . the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may ... outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion."

Here is the full text (and when you have finished reading, Mark Harris' instant analysis is well worth a look) :

"Following last week's General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA), I have been preparing some personal reflections on the challenges that lie ahead for us within the Anglican Communion. I have addressed these reflections to a wide readership in the Anglican Communion and they are being made public today on my website. I wanted to bring them to your attention accordingly, for you to draw to the attention of members of your Province in whatever way you see fit.

These reflections are in no way intended to pre-empt the necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report. Rather they are intended to focus the question of what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.

I am also sending you a copy of the press statement I issued at the close of General Convention, which you will see mentions the Joint Standing Committee working party that will be assisting in evaluating the outcome of the 75th General Convention.

I shall be writing to you again later this week, to invite your own response to me to various questions as the Communion's discernment process moves ahead.

Rowan CANTUAR:

Text of reflection

The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the
Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?

What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about?

Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It's about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against - and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).

It's true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes - which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society - there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Anglican Decision-Making

And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as
Anglicans deal with this issue 'in our own terms'? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn't help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn't. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of 'listening to the experience' of homosexual people hasn't advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy
of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into 'political' struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.

Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that
they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences - and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

Truth and Unity

It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right.

But let's suppose that there isn't that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth ('only the whole Church knows the whole Truth' as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple - and indeed desirable - to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.

First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don't run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn't just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone's interest - recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, 'let each local church go its own way'; but once you've lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?

Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each
other's life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges.
These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. 'You have not chosen me but I have chosen you', says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, 'Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?'

The Anglican Identity

The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies - a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word 'Communion' means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely
international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We're not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship - the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion.

These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out - not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we're still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don't compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.

Future Directions

The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches (developing alongside the
existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local
Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The 'associated' Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the 'constituent' Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of laypresidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between 'constituent' and 'associated' elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of 'Catholic' church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in
isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place - to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Conclusion

The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.

Read more »

...or at least not to mine, Kim Lawton, Gail Fendley and the crew from PBS's Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly did an excellent job covering our General Convention. Find it here.

I believe it was Buzz Lightyear who made those words famous. But they serve Lambeth Palace as well. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury will be making a statement tomorrow.

...or perhaps he would prefer White Sox tickets.

David Skidmore, the communications director for the Diocese of Chicago has compiled an invaluable resource for General Convention buffs, a legislative summary of General Convention. Thanks, David.

As there has been a certain amount of handwringing about the messiness of governing a Church democratically, I thought that those of you who have risked your lives for democracy, or had kith and kin do so, might appreciate this piece from the Guardian.

By the way, there is a rumor a foot that Rowan Williams may make some kind of statement today. We will try to keep on top of it.

I have nothing in particular to add to the online conversation this morning, but others do. So here they are:

Stephen Bates, religion reporter for The Guardian has an interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Asked what she will say when she meets Peter Akinola and others who oppose blessing same-sex relationships she says:

" 'I will ask him what encourages him to see some of God's children as less than human and less worthy of the dignity that our liturgy believes is the right of all human beings.'

"And if the Episcopal church gets thrown out of the Anglican communion - or, more likely, if its bishops get disinvited by Archbishop Williams from the next Lambeth conference of the world's bishops in two years' time? 'It will be unfortunate if we don't have partners, but the reality is lived at the level of local relationships, at local levels: folks from Nevada going out and helping in Kenya.' "

Steve Bates also has an analysis of our convention at The Tablet. He points out that:

"... the laborious process was scarcely helped by the intervention of certain English bishops, which went down extremely badly with the Americans. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham told the Episcopalians in a statement that they just had to fall into line. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester proceeded to trump that, by turning up in Columbus to inform the Americans, via the Daily Telegraph, that they were setting up a new religion – something that may have surprised the Episcopalians at their Sunday Eucharist service. Neither approach had apparently been cleared with Archbishop Williams in advance.

"In the circumstances it was unsurprising that, while Bishop Robinson was attracting a congregation of more than 1,000 for a sermon, Bishop Nazir-Ali in direct competition a short distance away could manage only 80."

Elsewhere, Bishop Gene Robinson has penned an exhortation to gay and lesbian Christians for The Witness. He says:

"Keeping us in conversation with the Anglican Communion was the goal -- for which the price was declaring gay and lesbian people unfit material for the episcopate. Only time will tell whether or not even that was accomplished. Within minutes -- yes, MINUTES -- the conservatives both within our Church and in Africa declared our sacrificial action woefully inadequate. It felt like a kick in the teeth to the ones who had gotten down on their knees to submit to the will of the whole, even though the price of doing so was excruciating. Such a quick, obviously premeditated and patently cruel reaction from the Right can be seen only as the violent and unchristian act it was."

Father Jake has two informative posts (and you've got to visit just to see the t-shirt.)

I especially recommend Bishop Peter Lee's letter to the Diocese of Virginia. He writes:

"The far right of the church already is filling blogs with statements of disassociation and repudiation. The fact is the General Convention has responded substantially and seriously to the Windsor Report. But some did not get their way: gay and lesbian people and their supporters who feel we have stepped back, and the extreme right, who find it so difficult to work with those with whom they disagree.

"The vital center of the church is intact. Much of what Convention accomplished is in the budget and in unheralded resolutions that strengthened the mission of the church."

I think these words really mean something coming from Bishop Lee. I sat in on several sessions of the special committee that dealt with Windsor-related resolutions. The bishop was a member, and he worked hard to push those resolutions to the right.I opposed every amendment I heard him offer. Yet, I have absolutely no trouble saying that I belong to the same Church as Peter Lee. In fact, I am humbled to be able to do so.

And that brings me to Nick Knisely, who wonders whether all this "two churches under one roof business" is actually true.

"[It]seems to be more of a talking point than it is a valid point.

"Why two churches? Why not three? (Left/Middle/Right) Why not four or five? Where exactly are the boundaries of these two churches? Where are the moderates (which Bishop Duncan claims in his press release to have collapsed, but which are the cause of so much pain at the moment to the people on the "left") supposed to fit into this bicameral model of our denomination?

"Or is this just rhetoric?"

The post-convention spinning is underway. Regular readers know that I don’t use the word “spin” in a derogatory way. If you’ve ever thrown a baseball, you know that any ball that leaves your hand spins. If you are playing catch, the ball that lands in your glove was spinning and the ball that leaves your hand is spinning. The lone exception is a perfectly thrown knuckleball. And if you’ve ever watched a major league catcher struggle to handle a knuckleball, you realize that it lacks the, um, clarity, of pitches that spin.

So then…Bishop Duncan and his folks have said what they have to say here.

I will be interested to know what their next move is going to be. It wouldn’t seem that the ball is in their court at the moment. All they, like we, can do is wait to see how the rest of the Communion responds to what we have done. If they don't like the response, I am not sure what recourse they have other than lawsuits that seem likely, in most instances, to fail. They are solid strategists, however, and, as I've pointed out in the Following the Money series, they haven't, thus far, lacked for resources. So perhaps something else is afoot.

One interesting response has already come from the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa. It’s here.

I may regret saying this, but I do believe these gentlemen are speaking in a more charitable tone of voice. Note they express sadness, not outrage, that they express gratitude for our express gratitude for our statements of affection for the Communion and say they are “moved by your generosity as you have rededicated yourselves to meet the needs of the poor throughout the world, especially through your commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.”

It isn’t as though they are agreeing with us. It isn’t as though they have promised to stop crossing our borders, and it isn’t as though the September gathering of Primates from the “Global South” might not come out with something harsher. Still, the letter is signed by Archbishop Peter Akinola, and I think that counts for something.

The key paragraph, I think, is this one:

We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic life, church life and leadership. We have noted the many affirmations of this throughout the Convention. As you know, our Churches cannot reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion. All four Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion advised you against taking and continuing these commitments and actions prior to your General Convention in 2003.

This seems more along the lines of a statement of fact than a rattling of swords to me, and I welcome that. (I am also happy to note the absence of Episcopal Church bashing in the communiqué from the CAPA Primates meeting.) I would point out a misstatement, though in the response to our Church. No instrument of Anglican unity that I am aware of us has opposed gay civil rights, as the statement implies.

That is why so many of us are concerned about Akinola’s support for a regressive Nigerian law that does, in fact, support the active repression of gays and lesbians’ role in civil life. For an excellent summary of this law and the political and ecclesial maneuverings it has engendered, see Matt Thompson’s work on Political Spaghetti.

I can’t close without mentioning the consider controversy manqué that some on the Anglican right attempted to gin up just after Convention. In her sermon at the closing Convention Eucharist, our Presiding Bishop-Elect, Katharine Jefferts Schori said that our “Mother Jesus” had given birth to a new creation.

I can understand why people found this statement challenging. The bishop was using a sophisticated rhetorical device that we professional writers recognize immediately as… a metaphor. You know you are in the presence of a metaphor when a speaker likens Thing One, to Thing Two. The speaker isn’t saying Thing One is Thing Two. She is saying Thing One is like Thing Two. (Only she doesn’t use the word “like” because that would be a simile, and, oh, never mind.)

We learn about these things in grade school, but then, apparently, we forget.

Dustin Cole of Saint John's Church, Georgetown was nice enough to provide us with this report on his experience at the Young Adult Festival, which was going on in Columbus at the same time as General Convention. Here's Dustin:

I believe that the Episcopal Church's slogan of "Come and Grow" has understated the impact that general convention has had on my spiritual growth. During the convention, I participated in the Young Adult's Festival (YAF) with people from all over the country (and the world). Our involvement ranged from forums, panel discussions, committee hearings, to Holy Eucharist, young adult led Compline services, and an earth-shaking Integrity service. The experiences have left me with not only a deeper knowledge and faith in the Episcopal Church's community, but shared a spiritual growth that continues to radiate from me after I left the boundaries of Columbus, Ohio.

This being my first convention, I had no expectations on what should or might happen. When I first arrived, I was welcomed warmly with open arms and everyone was so excited to be a part of our community. Participants in the YAF were eager to learn about each other's experiences with the church, our ideas for being a current leader (not a future leader, mind you), and how our differences in ideas made us stronger. After seven days of listening, sharing and partying with one another, I believe we all left with expectations on how to grow our lives outside of convention.

The past week has given me a stronger sense of how to find the sacramental in my daily living. Although there is such an awesome presence of Christ in sharing Holy Communion, we tend to overlook God's presence in our daily tasks and relaxations. It became more apparent to me that Christ can be present in our work, our art, or even dancing late at night. Dozens of us young adults learned how to knit and how we can use that as channel of prayer. We also discovered how the movement of our bodies through meditation, walking and simply standing can help to center our thoughts.

After watching and reading about the remainder of convention I continued to see our church's arms wide open, continuing our call to "welcome everyone." Of course we must make sacrifices for one another, but I believe that we did our best to reject statements and boundaries that aimed to create restrictions on proclaiming God's love for all people. We allowed the Holy Spirit to speak through us during our times of conflict and process of reconciliation. We all left the convention knowing that "neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." I am so thankful for God continuing to speak to us in ways that we can understand and our ability to listen to God's word made flesh.

Striking the set and heading home this morning. Had a quick look at the morning papers. I think the press did a good job explaining that the resolution the Convention passed yesterday urges but does not compel the rejectioin of gay candidates to the episcopacy. I've got two nephews and a niece coming to town this weekend to spend a week at the baseball camp where my older son is a junior counselor, so the blogging may be light for awhile. But feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Thanks for all the supportive comments. I really appreciate them.

Father Nick Knisely of the Diocese of Bethlehem has a moving post up on his blog Entangled States.

A very emotional day today, which has left me wrung out. I have a news story up over on our main site, edow.org, but it is written for a general audience, and may not tell you blog visitors much that you don’t already know. We’ve also posted a copy of the letter assented to by about 20 liberal bishops. I say assented to rather than “signed” because the bishops demonstrated their assent by standing after it was read in a closed session of the House of Bishops this afternoon. So I have few names to offer.

Working with the drafting group on that letter (Bishops of Chicago, Newark, Northern Michigan, Rochester, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming) kept me busy for most of the afternoon, and has also delayed my process my thoughts and feelings about what took place today.

I am not feeling the outrage over Resolution B033 that I’ve heard from some of my friends here, and read online. This may be because I lack the energy for it. Or it may be that I don’t think this resolution, much as I dislike it, does much more than articulate an emerging understanding in our Church—that we are unlikely to muster the political will to consecrate another openly gay bishop any time soon.

It is important to remember that the resolution doesn’t bind bishops or Standing Commissions, and thankfully, it doesn’t even mention nominating committees and electing conventions which, of course, it couldn’t bind either. That said, it sure does make it extremely unlikely that could muster sufficient consents if a gay candidate were indeed elected.

The resolution—which, in case you are just joining us—calls upon “Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." It would not have passed without the support of our PB-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori. She spoke in favor of the resolution in the House of Bishops and then, in an unusual move, was allowed to speak in favor of the resolution the bishops passed when it came to the House of Deputies.

I have to admire her willingness to take a stand that has probably cost her some support among the folks who were cheering the hardest for her on Sunday. That takes moral courage. (You can argue, I think, that the Convention did not do a morally courageous thing by passing the resolution because it doesn’t cost the straight majority anything to attempt to appease the Communion by voting to set back the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Church. But I don’t think you can argue that she didn’t do a morally courageous things by supporting the resolution because she has put herself at risk, and will, I think, pay a political price for it.)

Even as I admire her resolve, however, I wonder at the wisdom of this decision. We’ve already seen that it hasn’t appeased the bishops of Network dioceses who continue their troublesome practice of insisting that they are somehow responsible for all those who are in theological agreement with them, even when those folks who live in other bishops’ dioceses. And I don’t foresee Peter Akinola coming over to give us a great big hug any time soon. But this resolution just may be enough to keep us in conversation with a sufficiently large segment of the Anglican Communion to make membership in the Communion seem worthwhile.

The House of Deputies, I think, felt stricken by this resolution, especially those deputies who voted to support it—and most especially those gay and lesbian deputies who voted to support it. (It was affirmed by 70+ percent of the deputations in both the clerical and lay orders.) In the House of Bishops, on the other hand, a healthy minority of members felt that Presiding Bishop Griswold had run a bit roughshod in what he admitted was an attempt to secure legislation that would at least keep open the possibility that our bishops will be invited to the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

I am grateful that nothing the Convention has done compromises our ability as a Church to minister to gay and lesbian lay people, but sorry that we did not signal more vigorously our desire to include them fully in the Body of Christ – right now. We spoke a lot this week about the message we were sending to the Communion. I hope I don’t seem to be discounting the importance of that communication when I say that it isn’t the Communion that sits in our pews on Sunday mornings, or comes to our committee meetings and potluck suppers on Wednesday nights. What we did today probably turned off some people our Church had previously turned on. I hope when they get a chance to know Bishop Jefferts Schori, and watch us struggle to be true to our consciences in our treatment of gay and lesbian Christians, we can win them over once again.

Sometimes at Eucharist, no matter how many people are in the church, you get the feeling that the preacher is speaking directly to you. I had that feeling this morning. Bishop Jefferts Schroi spoke of believing something is so essential that it “takes the place of God.”

That thing, she said, can be a bank account, or a theological framework. For me, and perhaps for other participants in the Episcopal/Anglican debate, that thing is winning the argument, getting the best quote out there, having the last word.

The sin in this, she said is a failure to understand one’s self as “beloved of God.” It is only when we know ourselves as beloved of God, that we can “respond in less fearful ways” to others. Among those others she listed “a rhetorical opponent.”

“We children of Jesus can continue to squabble over our inheritance,” she said, or we can claim it, and live in a way that reflects our claim.

On one level, it is in the nature of my job to have rhetorical opponents. But there is a danger that I am particularly aware of this morning in living primarily—during General Convention, one might say exclusively—on that level. Developing and articulating strategy and executing tactics become the things that “take the place of God.” Trying to shape the future of the Church gets in the way of actually being a Christian.

Yesterday in the House of Bishops, Bishop Gene Robinson, reflecting on the dilemma our Church finds itself in—alienate others in the Communion or cause pain to our gay and lesbians brothers and sister—said “I don’t know what humility looks like in this context.”

I am not sure what it looks like either, but I think I have a better idea, after these 10 days, of what it sounds like. And I am in hopes of reproducing that sound in what I write and what I say as this struggle continues.

(edited later Wednesday morning for brevity and charity)

Regular readers may find this repetitious, and, as it will be 2:15 a. m. or so by the time I post this, all readers may find it ungrammatical and innocent of proper spelling. But just to make sure that we all know where we are tomorrow morning, whatever the press may say:

Know that the Episcopal Church could not have effected a moratorium on the consecration of bishops in same-sex relationships, nor could it have authorized a moratorium on same-sex unions. Eeither of those moratorium would have required a change in our canons, and such changes require the assent of two consecutive conventions. We are not dodging the Windsor Report to say that we could not do in one convention what it takes us two conventions to do. Nor was it encumbent upon those of us who don’t want to embrace the discrimination that the Report commends to point out to those who advocate that discrimination, that their efforts to achieve such discrimination could not pass canonical muster at this convention.

Tomorrow, after our PB-elect preaches at the Eucharist, we will take our best shot at giving the Archbishop of Canterbury a sense of how far OUR CONSCIENCES, and those of the people who sent deputies here will allow us to bend toward the sin the urges upon us. As I am a calculating son of a gun, I don’t mind a little sin among Communion-mates, for the time being, assuming that the time being is short, and there isn’t a need for us to organize a Communion-wide revolt. This, no doubt, owes to my corrupted moral calculus.

Assuming the times comes for revolt, and the un-corruption on my moral calculus, I’m in.

The Houses of Bishops and Deputies will meet tomorrow morning after the Eucharist (at which Bishop Jefferts Schori is preaching!) to make a last stab at working out some fuller legislative response to the Windsor Report.

The Special Committee co-chaired by the Rev. Frank Wade, retired rector of St. Alban's is being called back into existence to put some sort of resolution before the Convention. They may not be able to begin meeting until after 9 tonight, because the bishops just adjourned and none of them have eaten dinner yet. Meanwhile, the deputies, who are slogging through a legislative backlog have just reconvened for a night session that will last at least until 9.

Those are the time constraints on the front end. On the back end, most bishops and deputies have flights home tomorrow afternoon (I am here until Thursday and assumed I would be spending most of Wednesday reflecting in tranquility on convention developments for an article for the July issue of our diocesan newspaper. Hah!)

As perhaps you've guessed, I think that their only opportunity to get something passed is to adopt the language of "considerable caution."

One thing about covering fast-breaking news events is that you get sucked into believing that what you are writing about is important. (Why would a person of your obvious significance waste time and energy on these events if they weren't?) What I wonder tonight is whether the difference between "obliged to urge....to refriain" from and "exercise considerable caution" make any difference outside the little bubble we've all been living in for the last ten days here.

And the answer is, I have no idea. One thing I can say, though, after the experience this Convention has put itself through, is that if the Archbishop of Canterbury should issue an immediate response saying the compromise that our Church has worked so hard to achieve isn't good enough for him, it would greatly increase the number of Episcopalians who thought it was no longer worth trying to please him.

Dinner anyone?

The House of Deputies has been frustrating to watch this afternoon. There seems to be a clear majority interested in embracing the langue of "considerable caution," but it can't get the resolution on the floor. Hence, it is possible that we won't make as strong a response as we might like to the Windsor Report.

Here's what's been happening: the substitue resolution under consideration this morning was ruled out of order on the constitutional grounds I outlined two posts down. Then the original motion, including the "urge to refrain" language was defeated, getting only about one-third of the votes in a vote by orders.

Later, supporters of the "caution language" put forth a motion to reconsider with the intention of amending the "refrain" lingo to the caution lingo. This needed a two-thirds majority, and it only got 59 percent.

What's happening is that the left, which doesn't want to restrict us on the gay bishops issue, and the right, which wants us to fail to respond to Windsor in any meaningful way so that this failure can be used against us in the Communion, are outmaneuvering the middle.

It is still possible that the House of Bishops could tack the "considerable caution" lingo on to one of the more inocuous Windsor resolutions already before it, or that the deputies will use the one Windsor resolution that has come back from the bishops with a small amendment as an opportunity to tack on the "caution."

But there is still an awful lot of business to get done, so whether people will have the patience for this isn't at all clear.

Unfortunately, the defeat of A161 is already being interpretted by the media as our final word on Windsor, which, of course, it may not be. But the vote did come down close to early deadlines in the US and late deadlies in the UK. So keep you eyes open for Episcopal Church thumbs nose at Communion stories tomorrow.

I don't think we are thumbing our noses because that would require enough coordination to get our hands to our faces.

Apparently I have a wife and children.

The Deputies didn't accomplish much this morning. The Rev. Christopher Cantrell of the Diocese of Fort Worth, managed to get a substitution resolution on the floor that has no chance of passing. It would call for a moratorium on the consecration of a bishop living in a same sex relationship, and a moratorium on the authorization of blessings for same sex unions. If this resolution gets voted down, conservatives will be able to argue that the Convention had a chance to affirm the requests of the Windsor Report, but refused to do it.

As we adjourned for lunch, however, two challenges arose questioning whether the resolution was in order. Those making the challenge contend that a moratorium on consecrations would violate our existing canons. The canons can be changed, but that process requires two conventions. They also argue that the Convention cannot restrict a bishop's power to authorize new rites. That power, they say, is conferred in the Book of Common Prayer, which has canonical status.

Comment on the challenge is beyond my expertise, and, in this instance, I am going to let that stop me.

My hunch is that A161 is dead, unless some currently non-existant coalition comes together to substitute the phrase "exercise considerable caution" for "refrain from" in the resolve regarding gay bishops. I think on a straight up or down vote, that language, which was put forward by the special commission on Windsor, but then altered by the special committee here in Columbus would have a decent chance of passing.

But I doubt we will ever find out.

As we watch the clock wind toward adjournment tomorrow, it is worth mentioning that the Convention still has to pass a budget, and deal with a passel of resolutions required to keep the Church running for the next three years.

The Deputies have already agreed to a night session beginning at 7:30. More later.

(UPDATED)

I have yet to read a story in the mainstream media that captures even a hint of the excitement that Bishop Jefferts Schori's election has engendered here in Columbus. People still can't believe that the bishops were brave enough to do it, and we are delighted with her initial encounters with the media. Amidst the forecasts of doom and gloom, I just want to offer a reminder that women with young children make most of the decisions in this country about who is going to go to church where. I think these women are going to respond very positively to what we've done, especially when they have a chance to see and hear Bishop Jefferts Schori. She is a powerful messenger. Looking at it from my own rather narrow viewpoint--My primary professional concern is making the Church look good so that we can grow--I think we chose the person most likely to help us do that.

As an example of the general lunkheadedness of the coverage so far, have a look at this piece in the Detroit Free Press.

The lead: COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The global Anglican Communion was in an uproar Monday over Sunday's decision by its U.S. branch, Episcopal Church USA, to name a woman as its next presiding bishop.

Only problem is, not one Anglican leaders worldwide is quoted in the story. Possibly because only Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury has issued a statement and it courteous, if rather over modulated. The story fails to support its primary assertion.

The first prize for hyperventilation, however, goes to the Times of London. Here is the lead it took two writers to devise:

"The Anglican Church descended into “ecclesiastical anarchy” last night as American traditionalists refused to accept the authority of a woman and asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead them instead."

For those of you not following the convention closely, what actually happened, was that one diocese, Fort Worth, which has already petitioned the Communion's panel of reference for alternative oversight, has renewed its request, this time with an appeal to Dr. Williams.

It is a curious requests because in the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop does not exercise authority over dioceses. So Fort Worth is asking to get out form under that which is not on top of it. I am filing a request this morning to be free of the tyranny of the British king! It is as sensible a maneuver as what Forth Worth pulled yesterday, but I don't think it will make the papers.

Be not afraid folks. No matter how hard they try to scare you.

The takeaway—as magazine editors of a certain sort like to say—from today’s developments at our General Convention is that tomorrow is going to be exceedingly intense. The House of Deputies had supposedly blocked out more than two and a half hours, beginning at 3:45 to handle three controversial Windsor resolutions with the understanding that they’d stay in session late in order to pass the full package and present them to the House of Bishops tomorrow.

Instead, the House didn’t take up the first, and least controversial, of these resolutions until 5 p.m., passing it in an amended version (about which, more in a second) before suspending debate in the midst of the second and most controversial piece in the three-resolution package.

This means that tomorrow will being with the resumption of debate—and, no doubt, a flurry of amendments—on the lengthy resolution that includes this:

“we are obliged to urge nominating committees, election 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 winder church and will lead to further strains on the communion.”

And this:

“this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the blessing of same-sex unions..”

And this:

“this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.”

Meanwhile, the bishops, busy themselves with other less pressing matters. They might easily take what the Deputies send them tomorrow, and amend it, meaning that it would then have to return to the Deputies. All this, and the convention wraps up on Wednesday afternoon.

There was one modestly encouraging development for liberal tea leaf readers in this afternoon’s session. The Rev. Gay Jennings of the Diocese of Ohio proposed an amendment to what we’ve been referring to as the “regret” resolution.

It originally read: "Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of ‘the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ’ (The Windsor Report paragraph 134), express its regret for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences that followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within the 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."

Jennings’ amendment, which replaced the words “breaching the proper constraints of” with “straining” passed with more than 60 percent of the vote. I like the amended version better than the original, but I don’t know that either was especially significant in and of itself. More significant, I think, is that an amendment proposed by one of the leading liberals in the House was passed despite the committee’s hope that the resolution would not be amended.

This may indicate that the quasi-moratorium on non-celibate gay bishops is in trouble.

People made some particularly eloquent remarks on both sides of the issues today, but, to tell you the truth, I don’t have the energy to transcribe them right now. Maybe after dinner and the deputation meeting.

I just heard a rumor that the Diocese of Forth Worth, which doesn't ordain women, has appealed to the Arcbishop of Canterbury for pastoral oversight. As this diocese has already appealed to the archbishop's council of reference, I am not sure of the significance of this event, but I imagine it will make headlines nonetheless.

Here are a few of the stories that appeared in today's papers. I am leading of with this one from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution because it features a quote from our very own Karla Woggon, moderator of our Diocesan Council and rector of St. Andrew's Church in College Park.

The Chicago Sun Times.

Here's AP.

The press, alas, continues to treat anyone who flew here from London as though they speak the mind of the entire Anglican Communion.

I got to see Bishop Jane Dixon just after the election was announced, she was still drying her tears. I caught up with Bishop Barbara Harris tonight. She told me that she said to Bishop Dixon when the election was announced on the fifth ballot, “Jane, thank God we lived to see this day.” And Bishop Dixon said, “Thank God we didn’t have to hear the news in heaven.”

As I may have said before, it is hard to underestimate that boost this has given the convention. No one thought the bishops would have the courage to make this choice, and, frankly, it is making us feel a little better about the whole notion of having bishops.

Earlier in the week it seemed that bishops existed primarily to be pressured by British bishops. It is apparently bad form to exert colonial-type pressure on African bishops, but perfectly okay to send bully boys like Bishop Nazir-Ali over here to try to push us around. I suppose it could be that those wily conservative Brits are so subtle that they actually want us to push us toward the radical left. Hard to understand the pachyderm-footed interventions of the Bishop of Durham (down blog) and the Bishop of Rochester (the above-mentioned Nazir-Ali) in any other light.

Although I will say one thing for these Episcopal Church-haters like Nazir Ali and Akinola: They come an awful long way at great expense to talk to a really, really small groups of people. (See Akinola’s nearly invisible Convocation of Anglican Churches in America.) While the runner-up for Archbishop of Canterbury, and then for Archbishop of York—that’s Nazir-Ali—was preaching to 80 people at a Eucharist sponsored by the American Anglican Council, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson was speaking to a turn-away crowd of more than 1,000 at the Integrity Eucharist.

Scanning the wires tonight, I have become weary of the privileged place that the Anglican right is receiving in news stories about the election. What about these brave campaigners who are still less than 1/10th of the house of bishops (12 of the 180+ voting today) who have endured years of condescension from their brother bishops who don’t know enough to recognize their own sexism? Where were they in today’s stories? Katharine Jefferts Schori wouldn’t even be a priest without the likes of Barbra Harris. So why is it that she isn’t in today’s stories and the usual American Anglican Council-types are? (Not that I mind people quoting the Rev. David Anderson speaking against he Episcopal Church. As the Larry King show demonstrated the other night, there are few things more beneficial for our Church than to have David Anderson speak against it.)

The press loves conflict and the quick interview, no matter how small the group causing the conflict might be. It is worth repeating here that when the clergy and lay deputations of each diocese were asked to confirm Jefferts Schori’s election, she received what amounts to 90 percent of the vote. In politics this is a landslide. In the Episcopal Church, somehow, it shows we are rent asunder.

Help me out here, brothers and sisters in the media. What is the fascination with a group of people that despite investing millions of dollars in upsetting the Church, have achieved so little influence on their native soil? I agree that from a media relations point of view they are valuable…

(It was Bishops Duncan and Stanton who bolted out the doors of Trinity Cathedral today to contact their allies by cell phone as soon as Bishop Jefferts Schori was elected—thus violating the confidentiality that the other bishops, who had given u