I always tell parishes that the images on their homepages should give users a strong sense of what they are all about. This group definitely followed my advice.

Father Jake is teaching a refresher course. Me, I am still puzzling over reports that a signficant number of our bishops were unaware of the material he is covering until the task force on property disputes put it in front of them.

In its lead editorial, The Church Times suggests that talk of schism is "exaggerated and premature."

I wish I could agree, but I think Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria is forcing an "us or them" choice on the Primates, and will continue to do so. But I like this bit:

"Looked at over time, it is clearly theological nonsense to suggest that the Holy Spirit might lead people in different directions. But, in the short term, while clarity is being sought, it is natural for different groups to share the opinions of the society that has formed them. Thus one group acts in solidarity with vulnerable gay and lesbian people in society, another wishes to support normal family networks. Both groups act out of principle, and there is virtue in both. If Anglicans around the world can recognise this — and most do — then disagreements will be seen as the signs of a Church working towards a fuller understanding of God’s Kingdom."

Amen.

Update, this link from bls seems appropriate to the discussion Father Matt Kennedy and I are having in the comments section. I have mentioned the article by Father James Alison before, but it is always worth another look.

ThiI have been slow off the mark in pointing out that documents regarding the "listening process" underway in (some provinces) of the Anglican Communion are now onlne. The Church Times story highlights the views of Archbisho Peter Akinola of Nigeria, which you can read here. I am wondering if these views are shared by members of the churches in the United states that have voted to join forces with him?

He says: “Our argument is that, if homosexuals see themselves as deviants who have gone astray, the Christian spirit would plead for patience and prayers to make room for their repentance. When scripture says something is wrong and some people say that it is right, such people make God a liar. We argue that it is a blatant lie against Almighty God that homosexuality is their God-given urge and inclination. For us, it is better seen as an acquired aberration.”

One potentially helpful element in this response is that it commits Akinola to the argument that a homosexual orientation is "acquired" The evidence suggests a much more complex picture, and that evidence can be marshalled and put before the Communion. The archbishop would have left himself more intellectual room to maneuver had he argued that a homosexual orientation is sinful, whether acquired of not. But he didn't. We should do our best to make ue of this opening.

My friend Desson Thomson reviews the film about life in a Carthusian monastery. (An earlier item on the film is here.)

He writes: At first, the silence feels imposing -- practically deafening -- as we watch the documentary "Into Great Silence" and the monks of the Grand Chartreuse monastery praying, reading the Bible or simply sitting in quiet contemplation.

But as we become acclimated to this muted atmosphere (we have plenty of time, as the film is nearly three hours long), something extraordinary happens: Our senses sharpen. The whispering of snow outside, the occasional clearing of a throat and -- sweet mercy! -- the clanging of a bell that summons these befrocked Carthusians to prayer reach our ears with a resounding purity. We may not experience their inner glories, but when we hear the monks' Gregorian chants, it's as though we have slipped from our seats into the back pews of Chartreuse."

From Washington Jewish Week:

How influential

Three local rabbis have made it onto a list of the 50 most influential rabbis in America. (We're kvelling, but shouldn't there be more from the nation's capital?).

This list, which appears this week in Newsweek, was put together by Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, Newscorp's Gary Ginsberg and JTN Productions' Jay Sanderson, with a system that gives points for such questions as: Are the rabbis known nationally/internationally? (20 points); do they have a media presence? (10 points); do they have political/social influence? (20 points); and have they made an impact on Judaism in their career? (10 points).

The three admit their judgments are subjective.

Making the list from Greater Washington are, at No. 10, Bruce Lustig, Washington Hebrew Congregation; No. 16, David Saperstein, director of the Reform movement's Religious Action Center; and No. 41, Sid Schwarz, founder and president of Panim: The Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values.

Lustig says he's flattered to be not just on the list, but ranked so highly. He credits the opportunities he's had working with both Washington Hebrew and the Abrahamic Dialogue he created with Episcopal Bishop John Chane and American University Islamic studies chair Akbar Ahmed for leading to his rank.

And, he says, he doesn't know the three people who created the list, but he found the scoring very interesting.

Davis Mac-Iyalla and Colin Coward are reporting that anti-gay legislation supported by Archbishop Peter Akinola is in serious trouble.

Davis said:

“Because of the continuing uncertainty, Changing Attitude Nigeria will not celebrate the defeat of the bill publicly until after May 29. We are quietly confident and feeling more happy, but there is still the potential for lobbying in favour of the bill to take place by the Church of Nigeria and for the Government to spring a surprise. However, if the Church was confident about the success of the bill, we think they would be issuing a confident public statement now, which they are not.”

The former bishop of Albany has joined the Roman Catholic Church. The Living Church has the story.

Bishop Pierre Whalon of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, keeps a lively blog. Recently he responded to some of Ephraim Radner's recent writings.

"[Radner] wrote in part:

It is clear that the official structures of TEC have rejected the plea made to them, or have begun to do so in respect of what was, if we be honest, a critical effort at peace-making: the Pastoral Council and Primatial Vicar scheme. Will the Bishops by 30 September agree to other requests made of them or are we seeing the handwriting on the wall? I fear the answer to that seems virtually foregone.

To which I replied:

At Camp Allen (last week), I asked the Presiding Bishop during the business meeting whether she felt she could still name a primatial vicar. She responded on the record that this option is still open to her.

What your bishops said is clearly impossible is a council with a majority of foreign bishops overseeing (the operative word) the work of such a bishop. Had the scheme been consultative, it might well have been acceptable...

What concerns me very deeply is the notion that Dr Radner is putting forth here, and that the Primates Communiqué also implies: the Primates Meeting has now become the final arbiter of issues in the Anglican Communion. Who agreed to this? There is certainly no agreement between the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting on this, for example. (ed. note: emphasis mine.)

Furthermore, the Constitution is very clear that any bishop (or other cleric) exercising ministry in this church, never mind jurisdiction, has to declare conformity to the doctrine discipline and worship of TEC. Did the Pastoral Scheme envisage the foreign bishops taking the Oath of Conformity? And why would anyone think that the House of Bishops has the power to overrule the Constitution? Even Archbishop Akinola has to respect his.

What is also clear about the Communiqué is that it had several iterations before being finalized at the eleventh hour, and that no one was happy with it at that time. It certainly started out as a "critical effort at peace-making," but ended up proposing a coercive structure that implicitly trumped the governance of our church by the highly questionable rule of the Primates. Moreover, by its silence on proposed legislation criminalizing sexual orientation, the Communiqué seems to endorse it. So TEC is condemned for ignoring the standard of Lambeth I.10, while those who would hold us to it are not reprimanded for violating the same standard? This isn't peace-making, by anyone's standards."

While you are at the bishop's blog, have a look at his: "Long Note on the Situation"

Ruth Gledhill reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury is taking a "study leave" in June and July, followed by his annual holiday in August. That leaves only a handful of dates on which he could meet with the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops before the September 30 deadline by which the bishops must respond to recommendations from the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

The Bishop of Pennsylvania may face an ecclesiastical trial. Details here. No word yet on whether he will exercise the "Armstrong option" and declare himself a member of the Church of Nigeria.

Hat tip Ann Fontaine

Bishop Robert O'Neill has outlined the charges against the Rev. Don Armstrong, the Colorado priest who led his congregation into the Church of Nigeria on the same day that the diocese's Standing Committee decided there was enough evidence to being a presentment against him for theft and tax fraud.

Armstrong is the leader of the Anglican Communion Institute. The charges are on the third and final page of the document.

Here is a must-read account of the Houe of Bishops meeting by Bishop Jim Kelsey of Northern Michigan. It is the most comprehensive description of what happened at the meeting that I have seen so far.

A few highlights, beginning with a description of a conversation that Episcopal bishops who attended the TEAM conference in South Africa had with Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury:

But it was discouraging to hear about a meeting held between Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the US Episcopal bishops who were present. It was clear that at the meeting, Rowan Williams was uncomfortable and defensive, and that he has a distorted picture of The Episcopal Church (believing that the dissidents in our midst make up 40% of the Episcopal Church - - a bizarre and wildly inaccurate figure). When asked how the rest of the world perceives our efforts to promote and advance the Millennium Development Goals, Williams responded that he thought it was received as "papering over differences, and buying votes". (Quite a different read from the face to face encounters our people experienced throughout the TEAM conference!). When asked what would happen after the September 30th deadline set by the Primates' Communiqué, and who would decide about the adequacy of the response of the Episcopal Church to its demands, Rowan Williams responded that it would not be he who would decide since, as he said, "I'm not a Pope; that's not how our system works... I'll take it to the Primates, and they will decide". (As if that's how our system works!!!) This was sobering to hear, to say the least! At least we know where we stand, and what lies ahead. This again, helped set the stage for what transpired at the meeting that was about to begin.

More: Then, an amazing thing happened. Monday was set aside for consideration of the proposed Covenant, and we were addressed by the two Episcopal members of the international drafting committee which had prepared an initial draft for the Primates to review in Tanzania. (For the full text of that draft Covenant, see http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4252.cfm) The first to speak to us was a self-described conservative, Ephraim Radner. He has been a main player with the dissident groups in the Church, and many of us were frankly shocked to realize what a significant role he has representing our Church, given his very marginal perspective. Reception of his remarks were, at best, lukewarm.

Yet more: By the way, those who had been at the Primates' meeting in Tanzania reported some very disturbing dynamics. The Primate of Mexico, Carlos Touche Porter, said that every time there was a break, new amendments were proposed for the Communiqué, always more critical of The Episcopal Church. His comment was, "as the meeting went on, I began to feel less like a Primate and more like a Cardinal". Between his observations and those of our press corps, it was clear, in fact, that every time there was a break, Peter Akinola disappeared into a room where Martin Minns and other conservative US folks were holed up, and when he emerged, he had the next revisions for the Communiqué - which in fact were adopted. In the earlier drafts, there was a phrase"We respect The Episcopal Church", and on the strength alone of Peter Akinola's objection, that phrase was removed. All of this provides important information: that it is clear who is in control of the Primates' Meeting, and this reinforces why it is so important that the Primates not be given increased power as a centralized authority in the Anglican Communion.

Still more: On the morning of the last business day, Stacy Sauls, Bishop of Lexington and Chair of the Property Disputes Committee gave an in depth report concerning research done on the tactics of the Network and the American Anglican Council (AAC) and other conservative/dissident groups. It was chilling. There is now clear evidence that there has been a strategy by these groups to create an alternative ecclesial structure within the United States, with alternative leadership (Robert Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh as the Moderator of the Network) which might be recognized by the leadership of the Anglican Communion (i.e. - by those strengthened "Instruments of Unity") as the true Anglican Church in the United States. If indeed the Anglican Communion is transformed into a hierarchical body (through the implementation of the Windsor Report recommendations) and the Primates shift their support to the Network/AAC/CANA/AMiA congregations & dioceses, there will be a legal basis by which the dissident congregations will be able to claim ownership of all properties and church assets.

(Hat tip to Ann Fontaine.)

Updated: Simon Sarmiento has an excellent bunch of links up on this issue.

Rowan Williams says the Church must be a safe place for gay people, but even in this statement he does not publicly criticize those working to make it a dangerous one.

This is as close as he comes: I share the concerns expressed about situations where the Church is seen to be underwriting social or legal attitudes which threaten ... proper liberties." (emphasis mine.)

"Is seen to be." That's a peculiar choice of words. The issue isn't how Peter Akinola is perceived. The issue is what he is doing: supporting a law that would legalize human rights violations against gay people and their supporters, and tolerating a smear campaign against the most prominent gay Christian in his country.

First in silence, now in speech Williams has demonstrated that he will go to great lengths to avoid crossing Akinola. This has been noticed both within the Communion and without. He can only hope that the damage to his credibility is reversible.

Do see the Mad Priest's comment here.

Updated with this from Christopher Seitz. This is fascinating. He's appointed himself head of the Camp Allen bishops and begun dictating their course of action to them. It will be interesting to see how many follow his lead.

Read it here.

I am not sure Radner has taken into account that the Primates have not expressed their support for the course of action that he advocates in their name. I have pointed out two items downstream.

The piece, for all its scholarly prolixity, feels rooted in personal grievance. It also feels badly timed. Radner is coming off a difficult performance before the House of Bishops during which he alienated some existing supporters and gathered no new ones. There has probably never been a time when the house's theological minority was less likely to follow him and his five colleagues from the Anglican Communion Institute. (Keep in mind that one of those colleagues just joined the Church of Nigeria, not exactly a booster shot for the Institute’s credibility.)

Remember just a week or so ago that Radner objected strenuously when I mentioned that he was a board member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which is devoted to undermining the mainline Protestant churches in the U. S.. Guilt by association he said. Highlighting divisions when we should be striving for unity. Now here he is, these few days later, leading a movement to provoke confrontation with the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Something to keep an eye on: will N. T. Wright and Fulcrum insert themselves into this situation to shore up the ACI? Fulcrum is a close ally of the ACI. Indeed, Andrew Goddard is a member of both organizations, and Wright has certainly displayed a willingness to issue toothless ultimatums to the Episcopal Church (and to do so in a way that benefits his opponents and dismays his friends.)

It may be, however, that in advocating internal revolt in the Episcopal Church, Radner will alienate those in Britain who favor squeezing us out more gradually. And it may be that leaders of the Communion will understand that Radner, through is affiliation with the IRD and his sudden turn toward confronttion, has damaged the political fortunes of the Covenant more than any of the document's opponents ever could have.

Eight churches in our diocese are collaborating on an ad campaign. The churches, most of them in southern Montgomery County, have purchased about 20 ads that will run in the weekly Gazette newspapers during the coming year. The advertisement was designed by the Church Ad Project, and it directs people to EpiscopalMontgomery.org. Have a look.

Some commenters who are disappointed that the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops was not willing to accept the Primates' proposal to appoint a Pastoral Council and Primatial Vicar to minister to its theological minority have suggested that such a plan should be imposed upon the Church.

It is unclear under whose authority this would be done. While the plan for the council and vicar was endorsed at the Primates Meeting, the imposition of such a plan on the Episcopal Church was not. The language of the communique suggests the Church may have its participation in the life of the Communion restricted in unspecified ways if it does not accept the Primates' plan, but it does not suggest that what the communique refers to as "recommendations" will be imposed upon the Church if it declines to accept them.

The Primates, then, have not endorsed the actions that some commenters are urging in their name. They may do so at some future date, or they may not. There is no guarantee that the dozen Primates who are friendly to the Episcopal Church, and those who just would like this controversy to go away, would back such a measure.

The Living Church was on hand to hear Canon John Peterson, former secretary general of the Anglican Communon say this: “Many in the Anglican Communion are trying to impose a Roman form of governance. The Anglican Communion will be seriously weakened if it moves to a Roman magisterial form of governance.” (Read it all.)

And to hear Bishop Jon Bruno say this: "It’s time for [Archbishop Rowan Williams] to stop being Chamberlain and start acting like Churchill." (Read it all.)

Susan Russell has coverage of this event as well.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's Easter message is here. A video interview with the Rev. Jan Nunley, the Episcopal Church's deputy for communications is here.

Just two months ago, the Rev. Don Armstrong of the Anglican Communion Institute was meeting with the Episcopal Church's "Windsor bishops" at Camp Allen in Texas to help them consider alternative primatial oversight. Tonight comes news that he has led his parish, the largest in Colorado, into the Church of Nigeria.

The diocese's news release is here. The parish's news page is here.

This move, comes on the heels of this essay by Ephraim Radner, another member of the ACI, who helped write the first draft of the Archbishop of Canterbury's covenant for the Anglican Communion. Radner is a member of the board of directors of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which works to destabilize mainline Protestant churches.

These developments are somewhat perplexing because the ACI scored a major victory in Tanzania when the ACI-coached "Windsor bishops," were given a significant role in the primatial vicar scheme embraced by the Primates. Can it be that it only took the rejection of that scheme by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops to chase these fellows from the field? Maybe. But I wish we knew more.

In any case, Armstrong's desertion, coupled with Radner's association with the IRD have destroyed the ACI's credibility with Episcopal bishops, and damaged it in England as well. The ACI is an institute in the Simonian, rather than Smithsonian sense, and two of its six members have taken themselves out of the action.

Update: Interestingly, Christopher Setiz of the ACI is still insisting that the Windsor bishops meet and do his bidding. Seitz wants a group of bishops who number no more than 20, and perhaps as few as 14, to defy the rest of the House of Bishops and, in all liklihood, the Executive Council, and embrace a plan put forth by an organization which just saw one of its six members jump ship for the Church of Nigeria.

If this were to happen, it seems likely there would be serious consequences for the Church and the Windsor Bishops. But I can't seem to come up with any scenario in which there would be consequences for Christopher Setiz.

Update: bls at Topmost Apple chimes in.

Editor's note: Last week I invited Father Dan Martins of the Diocese of San Joaquin to write an article for Daily Episcopalian. I am delighted that he has accepted. The piece below grows out of an email conversation that Dan and I had, and, as he explains the details well, I won't get into that here. I am hoping that the article will inspire conversation that might move liberals and conservatives closer to a mutual understanding of what each side needs from the other if we are to remain together as a Church. From a little bit of previous experience, I anticipate two problems that can occur in these types of exchanges.

The other issue that arises in these sorts of conversations is--quite simply--civility. I am going to moderate all comments to the blog today and tomorrow. That may mean it will be hours before your post appears, but I think in the long run it will make for a more fruitful exchange. If I can make one recommendation that may help keep the conversation lively, but civil, it is the advice that Ernest Hemingway gave young writers about the editing process: "Kill all your darlings." If you think you've gotten off a particularly witty retort; said something in a marvelously sharp-edged sort of way; absolutely decimated your debating partner, etc., take that language out. That kind of writing tends to appeal to the hometown fans on any blog, but playing to the crowd, rallying the faithful, firing back at the commenters on another blog (while necessary at times) isn't what this exchange is for. So let's embrace a certain rhetorical circumspection before responding to the thoughtful words that follow.

A Motion to Reconsider
By the Rev. Dan Martins

I am grateful to Jim Naughton for his kind invitation to offer a “guest editorial” on his fine blog. In the wake of the mind-of-the-house resolutions passed of late by the House of Bishops, I participated in a comment thread in which I suggested that they had just kissed off the only live option for maintaining some semblance of institutional unity among those who have—until recently, at least—identified themselves as Episcopalians. Jim wrote me off-line, saying in effect, “So we’re at an impasse. What do you think will work?”

My initial response was along the lines of “Define ‘work.’” That’s an important question because it’s a step toward articulating a goal, and one element in the current unpleasantness is certainly a disparity of goals. As I organize my own thinking, I have found a particular analytical map to be helpful (not infallible, just helpful). It is predicated on the assumption of an omnipresent tension, a polarity, between the values of truth and unity. It presumes that we all value both truth and unity, but we do so in different ways and to different degrees.

On both ends of the ideological-theological-ethical spectrum are those who tend to let truth trump unity. For Liberals (progressives, re-appraisers), the operative truth is the gospel mandate for full inclusion, radical hospitality, toward “all sorts and conditions” of human beings in the life and ministry of the church. For Conservatives (orthodox, re-asserters), the operative truth is the gospel mandate for personal holiness and righteousness, taking God on God’s terms, and not trying to remake him according to our own specifications. For both groups, the goal is to have their operative truth triumph and become the ruling institutional norm.

In the middle, then, are those whose default mode is to hold their perception of truth with such a degree of humility as allows the equally important gospel value of unity to live and move and have some being. This group straddles the center line, and includes people who are on both sides of the divisive issues. For this group, the goal is to find a way to remain visibly and organically connected with one another, even in the face of radical disagreement about some pretty basic questions. (Full disclosure: I number myself in this category—to the right of center, of course. I do, however, sometimes make common cause with conservatives of the “truth before unity” variety, and hold many of them in high esteem.)

Of course, these categories are not absolute or rigid. They are porous at the borders. Even “Truth Liberals” and “Truth Conservatives” can seriously care about unity. But it’s unity on their terms; they’re not willing to surrender a vigorous prosecution of what they believe to be the demands of truth in order to maintain unity. They want to control the institutional apparatus of the church. They don’t necessarily want to unchurch those who disagree with them, but the losers must be willing to play by the rules of the winners. By the same token, both “Unity Liberals” and “Unity Conservatives” can have a profound respect for truth, and none them would embrace unity at any cost. Everyone has a “line in the sand” somewhere. (For what it may be worth, I believe many Unity Conservatives feel as though the House of Bishops crossed that line with their resolutions.)

So, as Jim has invited me to write about what I think might “work,” the way I’m going to interpret “work” is through the lens of the goal of the “unity” party—that is, What might enable those with disparate points of view to remain under the institutional umbrella of the Episcopal Church in some way? The “Truth Liberal” take-it-or-leave-it offer is, “We don’t bend our polity one millimeter, and we don’t flinch for a nanosecond in the ‘full inclusion’ of our LGBT members, even at the cost of cashing in our membership in the Anglican Communion.” The corresponding “Truth Conservative” position is, “We don’t back off one whit from traditional Christian sexual ethics, and we remain in communion with Canterbury, even if that means creating a ‘replacement’ Anglican province in the territories now covered by the Episcopal Church.” I respect and honor those who hold both points of view. Many of them are my friends. But trying to bridge that gap is a task for someone with more intellectual horsepower and political moxie than is available to me. I must address my appeal to the “unity party” (not having any idea if there is anyone left out there who so self-identifies, and how many there might be), speaking as a member of that party who holds conservative (orthodox, traditional, re-asserter) views on the questions about which we contend with one another.

Many are no doubt asking, “Why is unity that important, anyway? This marriage is over. You’re kicking a dead horse. Why not just go our separate ways, pursue mission as we believe God has shown it to us, and leave one another alone?” I have three responses—one spiritual, one emotional, and one practical:

Unity is itself a “gospel truth.” The epistle for Lent III—with its emphasis the ministry of reconciliation that the Church has received from her Lord—was particularly compelling for me this year, coupled, as it was, with the deep reconciliation signified in the parable of the Prodigal Son. God clearly wants all those who call themselves disciples of his Son to be visibly one. Any divisions, any “brand names” (denominations), among Christians, break the heart of God.

And the corollary is this: Any schism is incalculably more difficult to mend than it is to create in the first place. Just as with marriages, trial separations between Christian bodies more often turn into divorce than into reconciliation.

It’s my church too! This is an anguished, feeling-laden cry. As we look schism in the eye, there is not one set of lips—Liberal or Conservative, Truth or Unity—on which it could not plausibly be heard. Let me speak very personally, in the hope that, with some appropriate translation, my experience might be emblematic of others’. I’m clearly on record that I am an Episcopalian, not for its own sake, but as an instrumental means of being an Anglican. At the end of the day, I will choose to remain Anglican even at the cost of remaining Episcopalian. Yet, I love the Episcopal Church with every fiber of my being. The effective moment of my “conversion” was when I sat down in a college music department practice room in 1971 with a piano and a copy of the Hymnal 1940. I thought to myself, “Where have these hymns been all my life? If there’s a church that actually sings them, I need to be in it.” I have lived and served in five different dioceses, in both lay and ordained states. I’m the graduate of an accredited seminary of the Episcopal Church. All three of my now-grown children attended an Episcopal school in Baton Rouge, LA and all three are graduates of Sewanee—The University of the South, very much an Episcopal institution. The 1979 Prayer Book has formed me spiritually for three decades now (and I think it’s the finest of the genre within Anglicanism). I have enthusiastically displayed the Episcopal shield logo on a long succession of Chrysler minivans. I’ve been a deputy to two General Conventions, and read General Ordination exams four times. This is as much my church as it is anyone else’s. I have no desire to leave it. It is my home. Yet, even as a “Unity Conservative,” I have my limits. They are now uncomfortably in plain sight.

Let’s not give God’s money to lawyers. I know some good people who are lawyers, and I realize they do necessary work, but wherever trial lawyers gather, tragedy has already struck. This is not the venue to debate the substance of the “justice issue” of church property. The only point I want to make is that, if there is not an institutional solution to our disputes, there will be endless rounds of court battles lasting decades and costing tens of millions of dollars. That’s not a “should”; it’s just an “is.” It does no good to point fingers or assign blame. It will be a tragedy for which we will have to answer on the Day of the Lord. However one conceives of the Church’s mission—whether it’s the MDGs or open-air evangelistic crusades—it’s mission that will suffer for the sake of billable hours. Everyone, on all sides, will lose the credibility of their Christian witness.

So now what do we do? If you’ve read this far, I’m sorry to have to tell you: I don’t know! I and many others are feeling devastated after the HOB meeting because the Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar plan was the last best hope. It has the potential to keep even some “Truth Conservatives” on board because it provides a much needed layer of insulation between them and the behavior of official church leaders, all the while maintaining some degree of formal ties (the name “Episcopal,” the Pension Fund, informal relationships, history and heritage, even participation in General Convention and service on CCABs).

All I can think of to do is implore my co-partisans in the “Unity Party”—those on both sides of the divide—to “seriously lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions” (BCP, p. 818). We need to bend. All of us. Beginning with the knee joint. For the sake of unity, we need to be willing to live in a church that irritates us. We’ve got to be willing to swallow some horse pills. My sense is that many “Unity Conservatives” would be willing to say to our LGBT members: “While we cannot condone the blessing of committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage, because anything else falls short of God’s design, neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace, and be available to you with informal pastoral support. And we will remain in an Episcopal Church in which many (most?) believe that God is calling us to something more overt, as a faithful minority, even as we disagree about God’s call.” I, at least, could say that—but no more. Trust me, that much is a horse pill! But unity is important enough for me to swallow it.

What horse pill are “Unity Liberals” willing to swallow? Not being one, I can’t answer that question. But I can suggest that “Unity Conservatives” might welcome something like this: “Just because you don’t support the goal of ‘full inclusion’ doesn’t mean you’re homophobic, and those of you who can’t accept women as priests and bishops are not misogynists. We understand the need for some degree of ‘insulation’ from what church leaders are saying and doing, even while we don’t agree with your perception. We believe conservative dioceses should be able to elect bishops that reflect their values, and have those elections consented to. And while we don’t share many of the views of our Anglican brothers and sisters in the developing world, our unity with them is so precious to us that we are willing to lay aside some of what we consider to be true.”

This would not be an ideal church for either Liberals or Conservatives. It would be annoying. It would be messy. It would be profoundly costly—in a spiritual, not in a financial sense. It would therefore be real. It would mean letting go of our American idolization of democratic and parliamentary processes. The “majority” would need to learn to serve, rather than to rule, and the “minority” would need to be humble enough not to exploit the graciousness of the majority, but to replace mere obduracy with self-differentiated openness. Such a church would have a chance, at least, of making the sort of witness in the world that God expects of us. It might just work.

Bishop Jeffrey Steenson obfuscates. The Rev. Susan Russell clarifies.

Update: See Mumcat.
Bishop Pierre Whalon of the convocatin in Europe has written on his blog:

One image I will always remember: a new bishop asked her to clarify her stand on the uniqueness of Christ. +Katharine replied that her view is similar to that of Vatican II (Nostra ætate, actually), namely that Jesus Christ is the final self-revelation of God in the world, but that salvation is possible outside of the Christian Church. He seemed dissatisfied with this reply. After adjourning the session, she went right over to him and they talked for fifteen minutes, alone in the meeting room.

This showed two things about the new Presiding Bishop. First, contrary to some reports, her Christology is orthodox. There have been some who have held that extra ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation. But this does not jibe with Jesus’ behavior toward Gentiles nor to Paul’s teaching about grace. What is essential, as the PB noted, is that Christians do not know how God saves people outside the New Covenant. Somehow Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made, makes provision, since through him all people are offered salvation.

The other aspect of this incident is that +Katharine Jefferts-Schori cares about people who do not agree with her. She did not know that I was standing outside the meeting room with two other bishops, chewing the fat, until we realized that the two of them were still talking in the room. So this was not for show.

Colin Coward of Changing Attitude emailed me this morning to say that the Nigerian legislature did not consider the hateful anti-gay legislation being supported by Archbishop Peter Akinola and the Church of Nigeria before adjourning yesterday. The legislature as currently composed does not reconvene until May, after the general election, and then only for one week.

If the bill doesn't pass in May, it can be reintroduced in a future session, but people who have been monitoring the situation for various human rights organizations have suggested that the election may alter political dynamics enough to make passage of the bill in its current form less likely.

Bishop Marc Andrus' letter to this diocese brings back memories of my grad school days when the poet Philip Booth introduced me to the work of the poet Elizabeth Bishop. You can skip ahead and get to the newsy bits if you like, but then go back and read the poem with which Bishop Andrus begins his piece.

Canon AkinTunde Popoola, director of communications for the Church of Nigeria, just posted a comment at Thinking Anglicans regarding his Church's support for the anti-gay legislation being considered by the legislature:

"I do not think speaking publicly against the bill will do the Gospel any good in our context."

He may be speaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has not publicly opposed the bill. I don't think he can be speaking of his own Church, which has not opposed the bill because it has been busy supporting it.

There's both good information and great color in Bishop Geralyn Wolf's report to her diocese.

Info: "I would wholeheartedly support the Presiding Bishop’s selection of a Primatial Vicar (or whatever title is appropriate), in consultation with those dioceses who have requested same. In addition, I uphold the concept of accountability. For the integrity of our church, I believe that this should occur internally, with the Primatial Vicar serving at the pleasure of the Presiding Bishop. While the vote of the House was not unanimous, responses crossed 'party' lines." (emphasis mine: That's at least three "Windsor" bishops opposed to or uninterested in the Primates' oversight scheme.)

More info: "Bishops who support the Windsor Report gathered for a brief session, and plan to meet in August. (emphasis mine. I'd heard a report of an April meeting.) Again, these bishops hold different opinions on the work before us, but all believe that the Windsor Report remains the best document available to move forward as a Communion."

Color: "The final dinner was marked with much laughter and thanksgiving, regardless of which side you buttered your bread. The women bishops gave me another veiled miter, and Bishop Barbara Harris and I walked down the aisle of the dining room arm and arm, with the other women following. Bishop Harris kept waving her hand announcing, 'mother-of-the-bride, mother-of-the-bride.' " (Note: Bishop Wolf is getting married this summer.)

It sounds as though the bishops actually had fun, which I believe is unprecedented.

Dear Friends,

The meeting of the House of Bishops this week at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas may prove to be an historic turning point in the life of the Anglican Communion. The Bishops overwhelmingly rejected a “Pastoral Scheme” that was proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion at their February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. By doing so, the bishops reaffirmed that the Episcopal Church is a self-governing, autonomous church, and that it is not divided. We also served notice that we cannot accept intervention in the governance of our Church by foreign prelates.

In addition, we affirmed very strongly our passionate desire to remain in communion with other Anglican churches across the world, and we adopted a unanimous resolution, introduced by the Rt. Rev. John Howe, the Bishop of Central Florida and leader of the more conservative bishops, asking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Steering Committee of the Primates to meet face to face with our House of Bishops at the earliest opportunity. We believe that many foreign primates do not have an accurate sense of the Episcopal Church and we think such a meeting is imperative.

We believe that the bonds of affection which tie us to churches all across the world remain strong even if they are strained, especially with some churches in the global south. But even with those churches, we have many points of contact and shared ministry.

Differences among Episcopalians are ours to resolve, and the spirit of the House of Bishops was respectful of differences. But we are also united in protecting the integrity of the Episcopal Church as an independent, autonomous and undivided Church.

I ask you to continue to pray for our Church, for the Anglican Communion, for the Primates, for those who suffer oppression, for the poor, the needy and for all who seek the redeeming love of Christ.

Faithfully yours,

Peter James Lee

(source)

Bishop Don Wimberly of Texas who convened both meetings of the so-called "Windsor" or "Camp Allen" bishops has written to his diocese. He doesn't sound much like someone eager to participate in a scheme for alternative oversight.

It is too early to draw a firm conclusion, but it seems at least possible that Bishops N. T. Wright, Michael Scott-Joynt, Rowan Williams and everyone else who accepted the Anglican Communion Institute's assessment of the mood of our House of Bishops were badly mistaken.

Some 25 bishops attended one of the two "Windsor bishops" meetings held at Camp Allen (one in September 2006 and one in January 2007), but not everyone who comes to the open house puts in a bid on the property.

Of the 21 bishops who signed a September 22, 2006 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, saying that the Episcopal Church "did not adequately" to the Windsor Report, several have retired, and it is not at all clear that all of those remaining are a) intersted in any kind of alternative oversight or b) are able to persuade their dioceses to accept such a scheme. It may be that the "Windsor bishops" are really the Network bishops plus just a few others.

We will know more when this group--whatever its size--convenes again during the last week of April.

That Brother Causticus is very funny.

Changing Attitude writes that the Nigerian legislature resumed debate of highly controversial anti-gay legislation yesterday, and that Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, is lobying on the bill's behalf.

CA writes: "The version of the Bill presented yesterday is the original "Sani" version that was presented last March. No amendments have been made and the public hearing has not influenced the Bill in anyway. The bill does not take into consideration the views of the Human Rights Committee of the House that the bill will create a fundamental abuse of LGBT human rights. The Committee is understood to be trying to block the Bill and the chair of the Committee reported that they are going to present a minority report."

Davis Mac-Iyalla writes: "Conservative Christians want to use Nigeria as an example to other African countries to demonstrate that anti-gay legislation can be passed which criminalizes all affection and activity between LGBT people.”

Dean Nick Knisely has Bishop Kirk Smith's statement in which, refreshingly, he admits that his initial appraisal of the Primates' Communique was naive. Having bishops who admit it when they are wrong may take some getting used to, eh?

The bishop writes: Let me emphasize that the subject of the Communiqué (namely human sexuality) was not discussed in our gathering AT ALL. What was discussed with alarm was the process that we were being asked to follow; indeed which the Archbishop of Canterbury has already begun to put into place by the creation of a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council, which would exercise oversight over our own American church. This notion was soundly rejected by the majority of both liberal and conservative bishops. The issue was not our participation in the Anglican Communion, which we unanimously wish to continue, but the legality of the tactics used by a minority of Primates to enforce their views upon us. Our decision, not to accept their ultimatum, was not an issue of theology, but of sovereignty. Some will attempt to portray our resistance to their interference as "choosing to walk alone" from the Anglican Communion. This is certainly not the case. We remain as committed to the Communion as ever, but we must find a way of doing so that is true to our own Constitution. As much as we wish to work together with all Anglicans throughout the world, we are mindful that in 16th Century, the Church of England was created in opposition to a distant Roman Pope and Curia, and that in the 18th Century our country in turn fought a revolution to free ourselves from British rule. Why would we want to turn over our independence to a small group of foreign prelates, who we did not elect, and who have no legal authority over us?

Street Prophets has an item on "Beyondism", which describes a certain sort of holier-than-thou approach to secular politics that is alive and well in the debate within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Pastor Dan writes: "I don’t think we need to write the liberal-vs.-conservative divide of modern politics into unchanging truth. And there very well may be a better way of doing politics so that it’s not so partisan. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that we can somehow transcend the human condition here. Like it or not, we are stuck with our differences of opinion as a basic condition of our existence. Until the day of final reconciliation comes, we’ll all be of different minds about lots of things, including politics."

And: "Vive les politiques, then. Bashing one another over the head with political cudgels keeps us strong. And really, God bless us for that.

In answer to the inevitable question, yes politics is all about power. But that’s exactly my point. The "pesky divisions" of partisan politics aren’t really the issue. How those divisions are used to hold power over one another is a different question. Some people feel that faithful people must give up on power altogether. I think that we have to find ethical ways of holding and using power."

In an editorial today, The Telegraph, no one's idea of a leftist publication, blames Rowan Williams' embrace of Peter Akinola for the crisis in the Communion.

"Dr Williams now finds himself out of favour with liberals and moderate conservatives in his own Communion. And, harsh though it may sound, he has only himself to blame.

In the past couple of years, he has allowed conservative Anglicanism to be hijacked by extremists. Archbishop Peter Akinola, Anglican Primate of Nigeria, is the leader of the Global South provinces opposed to the ordination of actively homosexual clergy.

That is fair enough, but he has also defended new Nigerian legislation that makes "cancerous" (his word) same-sex activity punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. The deeply divisive figure of Archbishop Akinola was central to Dr Williams's Tanzanian compromise; is it any wonder that it has been rejected?

The Archbishop's attempts to hold together the Communion have led him to a theological position so convoluted that he now has few natural supporters. He will find himself exposed at next year's Lambeth Conference - if, that is, it can take place at all without the support of the American Church."

The Mad Priest's take on the significance of this editorial, similar to mine but with a greater depth of understanding, is worth reading.

They are talking about us over at Street Prophets.

Have a look.

The Rt. Rev. Henry Parsley has written to this diocese. He says in part: "It became clear to the bishops gathered at Camp Allen that the proposal of the Primates to establish a Pastoral Council, including appointed bishops from outside our church, to provide oversight within the Episcopal Church is not compatible with our polity. This pastoral scheme outlined in the Communiqué is not workable within our Constitution and Canons, and it was important for us to say this forthrightly."

Bishop Parsely attended the second of the "Camp Allen" meetings, but he doesn't sound here like a man interested in alternative oversight. If he ever was.

I forgot to mention that the new Episcopal News Service/ Episcopal Life Web site makes its debut today. Have a look.

The Guardian's religion reporter has just posted this item to the paper's blog.

Meanwhile, Susan Russell is the "guest voice" at the Washington Post's On Faith site.

A column from The Daily Trust of Abuja.

Note especially this passage: What amazes some of us is the audacity of deviants. The end times are here with us. We will hear and witness many strange things. A minority with an aberrant lifestyle will be pushing to impose their behaviour on the majority. A people who ought to hide their heads in shame want to pressure us to accept and even promote their aberrant lifestyle. In much of the Western world, gay people have compelled society to tolerate or accept their lifestyle but we in Africa have resolutely refused to toe that line. This is one issue that Africa seems to have resolved not to follow the West despite intimidation from those quarters.

And this one: It is certain that if those who signed the genocide convention knew that the definition of genocide is so elastic that it also protects lesbians and homosexuals, they would have hesitated before signing. In these end times, we will continue to see the manifestations of the wiles of Satan. So-called international laws, conventions and treaties that call for universal obedience may be no more than satanic instruments designed and disguised in such a manner that very few may have the wisdom to decode that they are meant to advance the cause of Satan.

Polity.

Don't use the word. Ever. It is tantamount to wearing a sign around your neck that says: "Vote for me. Not only am I anally-retentive, but I enjoy using words the average person doesn't understand."

"Governance" is better, but what's really needed is a phrase that explains why "polity" is theology. A challenge to our polity is a challenge to "the way we discern and respond to the will of God."

Or words to that effect.

Update: Brian Kaylor's thoughts on this are worth reading, as always.

I don't know whether it is fair to pose a challenge that I won't be responding to myself, but here goes.

Archbishop Rowan Williams clearly does not believe that the Anglican Communion's current governance is sufficient to the task before it. Most of the regular visitors to this blog clearly aren't willing to embrace the primate-dominated covenant that he is backing. Can you come up with something that responds to his desire for mutual accountability, greater catholicity and a more coherent ecumenical witness without inhibiting member Churches from responding to the will of God as they perceive it?

C. B. raises a good point in the comment box a couple of items down blog:

"The property issue clearly was a factor in the Bishops thinking. The NY Times reports:

Several bishops also said in interviews that they believed that the pastoral council arrangement was intended to strengthen the position of conservative parishes or dioceses that want to leave the Episcopal Church and take their property with them. The breakaway parishes could claim that they came under the new pastoral council guided by the primates, and that the council was the highest authority in the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy.

Bishop Mark Sisk, of New York, said in an interview, “The concern is that that would indicate we are, in some sense, subservient to the primates, rather than simply a church in fellowship with them. And that could have significant legal implications.”

Which leads me to wonder whether these implications were an unintended consequence of the Primates' communique --I think that is entirely possible. The thing was put together under duress and on deadline--or an attempt by the Communion, supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acquire some American real estate.

And as is so often the case, Thinking Anglicans is the place to follow it. I think the U. S. papers will probably publish slightly different versions of their stories, including quotes from the late afternoon news conference from Camp Allen, tomorrow.

(Such as this one from the NYT which quotes Bishop Chane and, wait for it... Jake! And this one from the Post. Oh, and this one from USA Today.)

In the meantime, click on the "continue reading" tab to see the letter that Bishop John Howe of Central Florida has written to his diocese. Howe is an extremely conservative man, so elements of this letter may surprise you. (Hat tip Ann Fontaine.)

Read more »

To read the concluding statement from the House of Bishops meeting click on the "continue reading" tab.

What journalist call the "nut" graph comes late in the piece. Here it is:

It is our strong desire to remain within the fellowship of the Anglican Communion. The Primates' Communiqué, however, raises significant concerns. First among these is what is arguably an unprecedented shift of power toward the Primates, represented, in part, by the proposed "Pastoral Scheme." This proposed plan calls for the appointment of a Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council for The Episcopal Church whose membership would consist of "up to five members; two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council." We believe this proposal contravenes the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Moreover, because it is proposed that this scheme take immediate effect, we were compelled, at this March meeting, to request that the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church decline to participate in this aspect of the Communiqué's requests. Nonetheless, we pledge to continue working to find a way of meeting the pastoral concerns raised by the Primates that are compatible with our own Church's polity and canons. We should note that our recommendation to Executive Council not to participate in the Pastoral Scheme, though not unanimously endorsed by this House, came at the conclusion of long and gracious conversation.

Read more »

Lambeth Palace has released this quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury:

"This initial response of the House of Bishops is discouraging and indicates the need for further discussion and clarification. Some important questions have still to be addressed and no one is underestimating the challenges ahead."

Meanwhile, AP has a story on the wires.

A Pastoral Letter to the People and Clergy of the Diocese of Washington

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ Jesus,

I write to you as we begin to close the Spring Session of the House of Bishops, meeting in Navasota, Texas, March 16-21. I am pleased that the House of Bishops was finally able to craft resolutions that seem to best describe how we see the state of the Episcopal Church at this time in its life. The resolutions that were passed did not please everyone, yet there was clearly a shift in the way we have worked together.

This meeting of the House was prayer-centered, with almost two hours each day spent in prayer and in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Bible study at our small table groups took place each morning and was a wonderful way to re-connect with one another and to prepare for the work that was before us.

Discussions and debate on the floor as we crafted the resolutions (available here) were respectful, thoughtful. There was none of the mean-spiritedness or “hostage taking” that has occurred on occasion at previous House meetings. We were deliberate in our actions and we spent over three hours in debate to craft what you now have before you.

The first resolution, “Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church” passed in the House by a simple voice vote after several hours of debate. The second resolution, “To the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates' Steering Committee” passed unanimously. The third resolution, which puts forth “A Statement from the House of Bishops-March 20, 2007” passed by a standing vote after some modifications in language.

These resolutions make clear that in spite of our differences on human sexuality and other issues, a solid majority of the House viewed the recommendations contained in the Primates' communiqué from Tanzania as offensive to our Church and disrespectful of the way that we discern and respond to God’s will. Our democratic polity is not universally admired within the Communion, but I was encouraged to see so many bishops resist the Primates’ call for our House to act unilaterally. We are a hierarchical church to be sure, but in our governance, the voice of bishops is balanced by the voices of the clergy and laity.

It was the hope of the bishops that the statement we have released will be a helpful teaching tool for the Church as we continue to discuss how best to respond to the Primates’ ultimatum by their September 30th deadline. As always I ask your prayers for the Episcopal Church, our Presiding Bishop Katharine, and all of our brothers and sisters throughout the Anglican Communion as we seek ways to walk together during these times of great challenge and change.

In Christ’s Peace, Power and Love,
The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane

Father Jake has broken his Lenten blogfast to weigh in on the House of Bishops' resolutions.

The new issue of Forbes has an excellent article on Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and women's ordination.

The proprietor of Cartoon Church has located the primatial vicar.

Afternoon update

Lisa Fox of Episcopal Majority is tracking the blogosphere's reaction to the three resolutions passed yesterday by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops. For background, look one item downstream.

And don't miss Tobais' creative take.

Updates: The Living Church story is here. There may not be much press coverage in the morning because the story broke so late. Second update: Rebecca Trounson of the LA Times did manage to get a story in.

If the Primates' "recommendations" were really an ultimatum, then the House of Bishops has said no. There are probably sublter ways to parse the following documents, but those will have to wait until tomorrow, or at least until my son has finished the online research he needs to complete his homework.

In the meantine, the three resolutions passed by the house today are here. Pay special attention to 1 and 3. And an ENS story is here.

The key passage in resolution 1 reads: Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and

The key passage in number 3 may be this one: With great hope that we will continue to be welcome in the councils of the family of Churches we know as the Anglican Communion, we believe that to participate in the Primates' Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal Church for many reasons.

First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution.

Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together.

Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.

Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.

Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.

I have just had a chance to read the Rev. Katherine Grieb's presentation to the House of Bishops yesterday, and to pull out some highlights for your perusal. If the bishops take what she is saying seriously, and I don't know offhand why they wouldn't, I think the possibility that the House will actually commit news before the end of its current meeting has crept up a notch. Prof. Grieb is regarded as a liberal, I think, by most people, but also as an institutionalist. That she is calling for a five-year fast from participation in the governing bodies of the Communion is a signficant development. I don't know that I think what she is proposing is a good idea--The longer we are in limbo, the worse it is for our institutional health.--but I am eager to hear how the bishops will respond.

I also appreciate the deft maneuver she has executed in endorsing the Presiding Bishop's call for a fast, but changing the activities from which we are abstaining. On to the highlights.

On the composition of the covenant drafting committee:

When we first formed as a group and introduced ourselves to one another, it became obvious that we were missing three of our members, no small matter in a group of that size. The representatives from South Africa, Ireland and Ceylon were unable to attend the meeting. We had been formed as a group in November, so undoubtedly they had prior commitments, but for whatever reasons they did not send replacements and we were missing those perspectives that I assume were also carefully chosen to balance the group. This was a concern to me because South Africa has been through the experience of apartheid and the powerful work of the Truth and Reconciliation process; Ceylon has recently ordained women after careful discussion, and Ireland has experienced the bitter religious conflicts between Roman Catholics and Protestants and also the peacemaking efforts. The perspectives of these three members would have been invaluable to our committee.

At the beginning of our work, one of the Primates present suggested that there might need to be a minority report, looking at me .... We worked together well, listening to one another, respecting one another's differences. But the absence of the three members I described meant that there were only one or two voices at the table to speak for the use of the covenant as binding the whole Communion together with different points of view on issues that are not adiaphora represented in it.

On the content of the proposed covenant:

That same majority point of view was also most insistent on the key role of the Primates as the interpreters and enforcers of the Covenant. A few of us suggested that the Anglican Consultative Council, being more representative of the Anglican Communion as a whole, including women and laity, might be the better body to interpret the Covenant. But it was felt that the group is too large, that it meets too infrequently, and that the ''augmented role'' of the Primates was a major part of the rationale for the Covenant in the first place. The language about the Primates prevailed, with the reminder that the Communion as a whole would be discussing this move at length, that this was a draft document to be tested by the larger Communion.

The same sort of discussion happened around the issue of the normativity of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in section 2.5. The only footnote in the document recognizes that there are other duly authorized Books of Common Prayer in the Anglican Communion, ''but acknowledges the foundational nature of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 in the life of the Communion.'' So that section now reads that ''each member Church and the Communion as a whole, affirms''…''that, led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.'' Once again, objections that this would work to exclude provinces that are not ordered by the 1662 Prayerbook were met with the argument that this was the sort of thing that the provinces would need to discuss and report back about: how central is the role of the Thirty-nine Articles or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Communion as a whole?

So the Proposed Anglican Covenant is most clearly based on the covenant document already widely circulated and ratified in principle by representatives of the Global South.

After Dar es Salaam:

The character of that discussion and discernment process has been clarified considerably by the Primates' Communiqué and by the specific ''assurances'' requested from the Episcopal Church by September 30 of this year. The Primates are acting in an unprecedented way, setting up a ''pastoral council'' and one or more ''primatial vicars,'' as if the Proposed Anglican Covenant process had been completed and the document already ratified by all the provinces. But the long careful process the Covenant Design Group had envisioned with respect t our section 6.6 – by which, eventually, in extreme circumstances, after all procedural due process had been followed, a member Church might be judged to have ''relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the Covenant's prupose'' by :the councils of the Instruments of Communion'' (all of the Instruments of Communion) – that suggested process has been ignored, bypassed, condensed, or otherwise made irrelevant by the Primates' Communiqué. The Primates have given the clearest possible signal that they themselves cannot wait for the Proposed Anglican Covenant. Their section 30 states that ''an interim response is required in the period until the Covenant is secured.'' As we speculate about what could have motivated such a strong response when the work of the Covenant Design Group had clearly advanced beyond anyone's initial expectations, I think we should assume that the Episcopal Church is considered so unreliable and so untrustworthy that the Primates feel the Anglican Communion is presently endangered without these ''assurances'' and without the imposed structures (the pastoral council and the primatial vicars).
...

The Primates' Communiqué makes it clear that the bicameral structure of our polity is not important to them: the House of Bishops is to give these assurances on its own, through its Primate. A polity that would require us to do this another way is our problem.

Prof. Grieb's key insight:

It says that failure to give these assurances means that the relationship between us ''remains damaged at best'' and this ''has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the Anglican Communion.'' In other words, this is a highly condensed version of section 6.6 of our Proposed Anglican Covenant document. We see that the main purpose of the Proposed Anglican Covenant is directed at the Episcopal Church specifically and the issue of same-sex relationships particularly. We see that section 6.6, far from being a logical outcome of a long list of believes we hold in common, is the point of the covenant-making process. We also see how the Primates are very likely to interpret the Proposed Anglican Covenant when it is finally in place: as a means to bring the practices of a province holding a minority view on a contentious matter into line with the view of majority of the Primates themselves so that the Communion speaks with only one voice.

Her recommendation:

I suggest that we enter a five-year period of fasting from full participation in the Anglican Communion to give us all time to think and to listen more carefully to one another. I think we should engage in prayerful non-participation in global meetings (in Lambeth, in the Anglican Consultative Council, in other Communion committee me