By Nicholas Knisely

I’ve been a parish priest long enough that I’ve been through five General Conventions. I learned pretty early on to dread them. Not so much because I had anything to do with them, or frankly in the beginning even paid attention to them. I feared them because of what my parishioners reactions were going to be to actions that General Convention had taken, and with which they disagreed.

When I first started out in the priesthood the concerns were often about nuclear disarmament. General Convention would pass a resolution expressing the concerns of the Episcopal Church, and I would have a parishioner come into my office generally arguing that the Church was incompetent to be making such statements. Then it because gun control. Then it became the Episcopal Church’s stance on the government of Nicaragua. Lately it’s been the issue of the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians. What I noticed over the years, that no matter what the issue, the person’s concern almost always ended at “The Church has taken a position that I disagree with and think is dead wrong. What do I do now? Do I find another denomination?”

My standard response was to remind my congregant that this church had a different understanding of dissent than other churches might have if you dissented from their version of Convention. When Convention takes a stance on a controversial secular or political issue, though that stance would be used to inform the workings of church structures, there was no expectation that individual Episcopalians would have to agree or even that they should agree with said positions. My standard quip to the parishioner was now that they were upset over something that Convention had done, they should rejoice that they had thus gained their full member in the Episcopal Church. (And then I would share my own lists of things I disagreed with. Like the move to the Revised Common Lectionary and ...)

But none of that meant that we stopped being fully a part of the Church. The Episcopal Church really only expects that people will agree (ultimately) on the words used in our authorized liturgies, based as they are on Holy Scripture, the Traditions of the Church and our best use of human reason. We understand that people may need to dissent from even these on occasions, but the expectation is that the community as a whole holds to these as core vehicles that carry us to a full and healthy faith in Jesus and as such members of the community should be diligent in working out their doubts and concerns with them. (Yet another reason we call it the Book of Common Prayer.)

I was reminded of this common experience the other day when I read an increasingly common meme on some of the Anglican blogs that the Episcopal Church is no longer recognizably Christian. The argument most typically states that since the Presiding Bishop has made a statement that the hearer disagrees with or that doesn’t demonstrate a suitable doctrinal basis of the Christian faith, the Presiding Bishop is accused and summarily judged to be a “heretic” or more commonly a person who has repudiated Jesus and thus an apostate. I’m not willing to agree to any of the characterizations by the way, but I skip over their refutation because it’s the next step in the argument that I find most troubling. That step is to claim that since the Presiding Bishop has made a statement that the writer objects to, the millions of people who belong to the Episcopal Church are also therefore heretics and/or apostates who have materially repudiated Jesus.

It’s the argument that “as goes the Presiding Bishop, so goes the Episcopal Church” with which I find fault. The Presiding Bishop is not a form of a Pope who is recognized to speak authoritatively or infallibly for the Episcopal Church. She or he is simply the bishop who is elected by the other bishops to chair the meetings of the House of Bishops, and in recent times to oversee the administrative functioning of the Episcopal Church. So an argument that claims that any views of the Presiding Bishop are necessarily normative for the other bishops much less the whole of the Episcopal Church is just wrong. It’s the equivalent to saying that because the President of the United States makes a claim, all Americans now believe what he has said.

The real office of Primate in the Episcopal Church while titularly belonging to the Presiding Bishop, is actually carefully apportioned to the whole Church in the General Convention. But, now speaking as a parish priest, we’ve long recognized that General Convention often does not take its responsibility in the primatial role seriously. There have been many resolutions and canons passed by General Convention that simply represent the scoring of a political victory by one group or another within the denomination. Some of them are obviously political and some are more obscurely so. However, General Convention most clearly does express its primatial office when it authorizes liturgies for regular use and/or issues a new Book of Common Prayer.

Now, should the primatial authority of the Episcopal Church authorize a new Prayer Book that clearly and intentionally repudiates the sovereignty of Jesus, or denies the Doctrine of the Trinity or rejects the Creeds and other historic formulations of the universal Church, then I would agree that the Episcopal Church is no longer a church and that it has come time to leave for a place that is authentically Christian. But I do not see that such a thing has happened. At most you can argue that Episcopal Church has been overly tolerant of local option and/or questionable teaching by its members, but it has never authoritatively denied Christ.

I have had the real honor of working in ecumenical circles and in formal discussions with other denominations. When talking to denominations outside the Anglican Communion we assume that what they teach and believe is what is found in their authoritative documents and normative practices. Perhaps its time to ask that the Churches within the Anglican Communion with whom we are in Communion and the bishops of the Episcopal Church who are now claiming the Episcopal Church is non-Christian, should show the same courtesy to us?

The Very Rev. W. Nicholas Knisely is Dean of Trinity Cathedral in Phoenix Ariz. He serves as Chair of the Standing Commission on Episcopal Church Communication, is active in ecumenical works and was originally trained as an astronomer before he was ordained. His blog is Entangled States.

I am resisting the temptation to to atttempt instant commentary on the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech yesterday to the General Synod. Instead, I offer these cartoons for your consideration. They were drawn by the Rev. Canon Andrew Doyle, a deputy from the Diocese of Texas, and called to my attention by my colleague Carol Barnwell. I especially like the one of the free range bishops and the one about the Book of Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

...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.

...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 up their cell phones when they entered the Cathedral, thought was in effect. And it was the fact that several people from our diocese overheard these conversations that allowed us to tip you to the fact that a surprise might be in the offing. Conservative bishops are special, special people and they deserve special, special rules. Especially when they are betraying the trust of their brother and sister bishops for whom they show no regard.) …

…but having said that, at some point, don’t you expect them to produce something along the lines of results? I mean, is this the great schism? That the eight or ten diocese (out of more than 100) that got themselves together to oppose Bishop Jefferts Schori are going to walk? I would hate to see it happen, but schism has been your guiding narrative for three years, and what if that is all you ever have to show for it? Meanwhile, you fail to notice that we’ve know got an Episcopal Church united behind a female Primate who speaks Spanish and was elected with the support of her Latin American brethren, leaving us better positioned than we have ever been to evangelize not only the United States, Central and northern South America and beyond.

If you were financial reporters and people kept predicting a recession that never came, you’d eventually stop paying attention to them, no? Or, if you were Charlie Brown and you’d been out with Linus on Halloween waiting for the Great Pumpkin, eventually you’d start wondering whether the Great Pumpkin was ever going to come.

You go ahead and wonder. I am pretty sure we will still be here when you are done.

My more formally journalistic coverage of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's election as our next presiding bishop is online at edow.org, along with a couple of pictures. I will have more to say later, but let me just quickly mention that people are really excited about what the bishops have done and hardly believe they had the courage to do it. There has been a tide of anxiety building all week as we approached some final decision on the Windsor-related resolutions, and now it has been at least partially dispelled.

Let me say four quick things before I get something to eat:

1. The conservative press came at her pretty pointedly with questions about how she will be received by the rest of the Anglican primates. I don't know how she will be received, but I can tell you that the press didn't lay a glove on her. She responded in utter charity, with total equanimity, and still got the best of the exchanges. If she were my client I'd say, "You don't need my help. Keep doing what you are doing."

2. The mood among women at this convention, especially female priests, is ecstatic. "Tears of joy," as one deputy put it. Lots of moms talking about what this will mean to their daughters. Lots of oldtimers reminiscing about all the fights they fought and slights they endured. We dive back in to all of the Windsor stuff tomorrow, but this is a triumphant moment tonight. And as someone who left the Roman Catholic Church primarily over the ordination of women, who was received into the Episcopal Church by Bishop Jane Dixon, and who gets a chance to work with Bishop Barbara Harris, all I can say is YAHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

3. I don't know how the politics of this is going to shake out in the Anglican Communion yet. On the one hand, this is another "first" from the Episcopal Church, and maybe that won't be well received. On the other hand, the hand I favor, it now becomes clear that attacking the Church that deals fairly with gays and lesbians also means attacking the Church that deals fairly with women. The cause of the small, vulnerable gay population is now linked to the large and much less vulnerable female population.

Seems to me the Episcopal right can either accept Bishop Jefferts Schori as a woman and go after her as someone who supported the consecration of Gene Robinson, or pursue the nutball logic, already on the Web although I won't link to it, that her election is a "slap in the face to the Global South." (Good luck with that by the way. She had heavy support from the Latin American countries in our Church and probably speaks better Spanish than any of the mostly Anglo bishops of the tiny but ultra-conservative province of the Southern Cone.)

4. Bishop Jefferts Schori served on the Special Commission on Windsor, the precursor of the Special legislative Committee on Windsor. Her election gives additional momentum to a trend that was building earlier in the day. The deputies, but not necessarily the bishops, seem to be giving the committee a good reception. Its recommendations are passing despite attempts to amend from both left and right.

I think the showdown will come over the language the Special committee endorsed tonight regarding the consecration of non-celibate gay bishops. It says that they are "obliged to urge" that bishops and standing committees "refrain" from giving consent to the election of what from now on I am going to call an NCGB.

As it has been explained to me, this isn't as harsh as it sounds (to my two left ears) because a) the General Convention cannot bind standing committees and bishops via resolution. Binding them would take a change in the canons, and that would require approval of two conventions. As we aren't in a position to consider such a change at this convention, the earliest it could be imposed would be six years from now, so... b) saying the committee is "obliged" to urge the convention suggests it woueldn't urge the convention if left to its own devices. I appreciate, actually, I really admire the wordsmithing here. It is first class. But it shouldn't have to be. The original resolution urging considrable caution was good enough, and, as far as I think we can go without domestic consequences.

At some point we need to recognize, just for self-preservation, that meeting the needs of Rowan Williams's diplomatic agenda could cost us evangelical opportunities here in our own backyard. We have already alienated the people our actions were likely to alienate, but we haven't reached out as energetically as we should have to the un-churched people who might find our actions appealing, who might think that finally there is a Church that takes them seriously.

Bishop Jefferts Schori's election gives us a new opportunity to do so. Let's not blow it by going all "wobbly", as a certain conservative British icon once said, on Windsor. We keep trying to be some of what God calls us to be and avoiding the pain. Let's be all of what God calls us to be, and reap the benefits.

Episcopal News Service
Saturday, June 17, 2006

Special Committee refines pastoral-care, expression-of-regret resolutions

By Herb Gunn

[ENS] The Special Legislative Committee on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion put final wording to two resolutions during a pair of committee meetings June 17.

Resolutions A160: "Expression of Regret" and A163: "Pastoral Care and Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" could reach the floor of the House of Deputies June 18.

In formulating an expression of regret, the committee replaced the statement proposed by the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communication. The Special Commission had prepared the legislation following its extensive study of the Windsor Report.

Not only did the committee seek to incorporate the divergent and passionately expressed views from the June 14 open hearing, which drew more than 1,200 people, the committee also struggled to balance the divergent perspectives of its own members.

The final draft from the committee reads, "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."

Michael Howell, member of the committee from the Diocese of Southwest Florida, sought even stronger language of penitence.

"I have some concerns about the resolution as it stands amended, in that it seems what we are expressing regret for, is starting to move along the trajectory that we did not anticipate the impact of what we [did]," said Howell, rather than "the communion made its mind very clear that we shouldn't do this and we went ahead and did it anyway."

"We are trying to find baby steps that bring us closer together," said committee member the Rev. Canon Ian T. Douglas, deputy from the Diocese of Massachusetts, "rather than running straight into each other."

Bishop Robert O'Neill of Colorado said, "The vehicle of legislation will never be adequate to sufficiently express regret or apologize."

Despite hearing little direct testimony on resolution A163 on pastoral care and Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO), the committee made two modest amendments to the legislation and sent it to the House of Deputies.

The Rev. Dan Martins, deputy from the Diocese of San Joaquin, sought to strengthen the role of DEPO in dioceses where persons believe that pastoral care from their own bishops is not possible. The original resolution of the commission called for using DEPO "when necessary." Martins asked the committee to replace the language so that DEPO would be available "when requested in good faith."

The language, said Martins, "puts more pressure on diocesan bishops to be amenable and cooperative in responding to requests."

Rebecca Snow, a deputy from the Diocese of Alaska, moved to strengthen the resolution's language that calls for other Anglican bishops to respect the diocesan boundaries across the communion. The committee approved her amendment that would have the General Convention "urge continued maintenance of historical diocesan boundaries, the authority of the diocesan bishop, and respect for the historical relationships of the separate and
autonomous provinces of the Anglican Communion."

The complete text of the amended resolution follows:

"Resolved, that the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirm the centrality of effective and appropriate pastoral care for all members of this church and all who come seeking the aid of this church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commit the Episcopal Church to the ongoing engagement of and sensitive response to the request and need of all the people of God - in particular, but not exclusively, those who agree and those who disagree with the actions of this body, those who feel isolated thereby, and gay and lesbian persons within and without this Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention recognize the agonizing position of those who do not feel able to receive appropriate pastoral care from their own bishops, and urges the members of the House of Bishops to seek the highest degree of communion and reconciliation within their own dioceses, using when requested in good faith the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) process detailed in the March 2004 statement of the
House of Bishops, 'Caring for All the Churches'; and be it further

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention urge continued maintenance of historic diocesan
boundaries, the authority of the diocesan bishop, and respect for the historical relationships of the separate and autonomous Provinces of the Anglican Communion."

The committee will resume its work at 7:30 a.m. June 18, in the Hayes conference room of the Hyatt Regency, addressing resolution A161: "Election of Bishops," and A162: "Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions."

-- Herb Gunn is editor of The Record, the newspaper of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan,
and a member of the Episcopal Life team at General Convention.

The press is really having a difficult time here at the Convention. As one reporter, who called me to check in on the status of our Thurgood Marshall resolution said, “I’ve got no quotes, no votes, no nothing.”

[The Marshall resolution seems certain to be referred to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. That is what the legislative committee that considered the resolution recommended, and their recommendation has passed the House of Deputies. In presenting the resolution to the deputies, Dean Sam Candler of Atlanta said his committee had been impressed with our diocese presentation, especially the statement of Darren McCutchen, the 18-year-old alternate deputy from St. Timothy’s who spoke in support of the resolution. (Darren’s statement is hiding under the keep reading button at the bottom of this post.)]

The most significant of the Windsor resolutions, those addressing the report’s request for moratoria on the consecration of non-celibate gay bishops and on the authorized of public rites for blessing same-sex relationships, have not yet emerged from the special legislative committee that is handling them. The Convention leadership had dearly hoped to deal with these issues before the election of the next presiding bishop. But, as I right, there is only about one hour left in the legislative session today (Saturday) and the bishops adjourn to nearby Trinity Cathedral for the election at about 10:30 a. m. tomorrow, so having Windsor off the table is no longer a realistic possibility.

I have no interesting PB scuttlebutt. The field is large and there is no clear front runner, so there is no talk of voting blocs, kingmakers, etc. If the candidates are doing any electioneering, they are doing it behind closed doors.

While our response to the Windsor Report is still a work in progress, there have been several votes that I found suggestive. The House of Bishops yesterday passed by 76-67 a resolution opposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. They also amended one of the Windsor response resolutions that had been passed by the House of Deputies by inserting languages that stressed the independence of the Churches that make up the Communion. This amendment, which is generally perceived as making the resolution more “liberal” had been attempted in the House of Deputies, but failed. The bishops’ action, which must now be approved by the deputies, seems to contradict the “conventional wisdom” (pun not so much intended as recognized at not removed) that the deputies are the more liberal house.

The bishops continue to discuss in smaller groups whether there is some way to move toward the language of the Windsor Report without discriminating against gay Christians. They don’t seem to be making much progress, but to give you a sense of the range of ideas under discussion, some have seriously proposed postponing the consecration of any bishops until after the Lambeth Conference in 2008. There was even conversation about forestalling the selection of the next presiding bishop, and agreeing on a short-term caretaker instead. The name of Claude Payne, the retired bishop of Texas, was mentioned in this context.

Neither of these ideas makes a lick of sense to me. As a temporary measure, I thought the total moratorium on consecrations that the bishops adopted last year made sense. But two years is a long time for dioceses to be without elected leadership. And pegging consecrations to the Lambeth Conference invests whatever statement Lambeth might make on the issue with more significance than it should have. Putting off the election of a PB would not only create a leadership vacuum, but it would, I think, demonstrate that our existing leadership lacks the conviction and the will even to attempt a solution to our current problems.

(Don't forget to click and read Darren's speech.)

Read more »

Bowie Snodgraass, whom some of you know as a columnist for Washington Window is also web content editor for episcopalchurch.org. She's roaming all over the convention take photographs that you can find here.

Meanwhile, Sean McConnell has his first podcast from the Convention up at episcopod. It is a lot of fun, and well worth the time it takes for it to dowload.

UPDATED NEAR END

John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, who seems like a smart and subtle fellow, is pressing our bishops to enact full moratoria on the consecration of non-celibate gay bishops and on the blessing of same-sex relationships. He is meeting with various bishops, in smallish groups, I think, to press his case.

Those of us who were in the second floor bar of the Hyatt last night along about midnight (that was ginger ale in my glass) saw him walk through in the company of Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, an interesting site because Bruno is built like a tight end, and Sentamu like a marathoner.

His argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:

(A caution here: I haven’t heard this directly from the Archbishop, and some of what people are portraying as his argument may be their own developments on his thinking).

If you don’t enact full moratoria, several things might happen, none of them good: either you will be marginalized within the Communion, or the Communion will have to cope with intra-provincial splinters as the Akinolians attempt to assemble an orthodox international fellowship.

On the other hand, if you vote for moratoria, you will be on the right side of Windsor whereas Akinola of Nigeria, Orombi of Uganda and Venables of the Southern Cone, among others who have crossed your provincial boundaries to lay claim to parishes or start churches, will be on the wrong side, and then they will be the ones subject to whatever discipline it is that the Communion can muster.

In addition, if we accept the moratoria, we buy ourselves time, the argument goes. Akinola won’t be a primate forever, and Orombi’s has a weak hold on his bishops’ loyalty (north-south tensions in Uganda). If the Communion outlives their tenures, perhaps the storm will pass.

Looking at this argument strictly in tactical rather than moral terms, I don’t find it persuasive.

While a moratorium on consecrating gay bishops is easily effected (in fact, I think the chances we will elect a gay bishop before Lambeth ’08 are already quite small), a moratoria on the blessing of same sex unions would present enormous problems. If you ban something, you have to police the ban. Most of our Church would have no stomach for this, and I think most of our bishops would hope never to learn about whatever blessings might occur. But you could count on watchdogs in each diocese to ferret out violations of the moratoria and demand that the priests, and perhaps the congregations involved be disciplined. (I know there are several people in our diocese who would relish this role.) If the bishops failed to punish the people involved, this failure would be used by groups like the American Anglican Council here in the US, Anglican Mainstream in the UK, and a number of foreign primates, as evidence that we were acting in bad faith. Hence, as a means of pacifying Anglican waters, and improving out standing in the Communion, it would gain us nothing.

If, on the other hand, the bishop disciplined the priest involved, and then the next priest involved, and the next priest involved, he or she might very well face a popular revolt. This moratorium would have an effect precisely opposite to the one its proponents suggest. It would not “create space” in which a conversation could occur.” It would not “buy time” for reconciliation. It would not “put this issue behind us” and allow us to focus on mission. Rather, it would convulse the Church

In return for taking an action that would alienate perhaps the majority of the people in our pews, we have the promise, if that is not too strong a word, that Communion pressure would be brought to bear on the primates who have claimed control of some of our churches. This would be easier to believe if Communion pressure had been brought to bear when the primates of Rwanda and South East Asia came to this country in 2000 to ordain bishops for the Anglican Mission in America. As nothing effective was done to then, three years before the consecration of Gene Robinson, it seems unlikely that the Communion can rouse itself to do much now.

UPDATE: Second thoughts on this paragraph I had written:

"Finally, while I am convinced that the Archbishop of York, and probably N. T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham, are speaking for the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am not so sure that they are speaking, for the Communion. The chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council, Bishop John Paterson is here, as is the Secretary General of the Communion Canon Kenneth Kearon. (I saw Paterson last night. And I think Kearon is still in town.) They have been conspicuously uninvolved in the effort to get us to go farther than the current crop of Windsor-related resolutions take us. I am not sure what to make of that, but it doesn’t strike me as though we are looking at a fully-coordinated effort to get us to abandon our gay brothers and sisters, and that gives me reason for hope."

However, while I was writing an interesting thing took place in the morning press briefing. After Bishop Ed Little of Northern Indiana said that the Arch of Y was here representing the Arch of C, Canon Jim Rosenthal, communications director for the Anglican Communion office rose, very politely and with apologies I am told, to say that in fact, while York had read Rowan's message to the Convention he was not here as Rowan's rep.

He said: "`The Archbishop of York is here on his own right, he is not here on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury."

He emphasized that York is a powerful primate on his own (indirectly delinking him with Canterbury) "I`if you live in England, you know the Archbishop of York is a very, very powerful seat."

This leads me to ask whether it is possible that thei bishops' believe they are under pressure from the entire Communion, when, in fact, they are under pressure from a handful of British bishops, and the usual suspects on the Anglican right.

He's doing a show on our situation tonight at 9. An interview with the Presiding Bishop beings at 9:30. I have been aiming for a night away from the convention with a friend, so feel free to use this as an open thread for reactions to the show.

Susan Russell's blog is a must-read today. See particularly her posting on "the idol of clarity," and her link to the new Claiming the Blessing video.

My colleague at the Cathedral College, Wayne Floyd, is also blogging.

Not too long ago, the House of Deputies passed what is by far the least controversial of the Windsor-related resolutions. It is hiding below the keep reading button. I have left in the words that were struck out, and underlined the language that was added by amendment. Attempts to further amend the resolution to include the words “independent” and “autonomous” were defeated, probably (as Father Jake sagely observes) because Prof. Ian Douglass of Episcopal Divinity School, perhaps the leading liberal on the committee that proposed the resolution, spoke against them.

The House of Bishops has yet to consider this resolution.

Read more »

The Rev. John Danforth, formerly a U. S. Senator and U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations is the keynote speaker at tonight’s Presiding Bishop’s Forum on Reconciliation. He gave a small press conference this afternoon that drew reporters from the Associated Press, the Guardian, National Public Radio, Religion News Service, Religions and Ethics Newsweekly (PBS) and a few Church folks.

Here’s a sneak preview of some of the themes he will touch on tonight:

“I think our country and the world call out for reconciling. I think there is a calling to the Episcopal Church to be in a ministry of reconciliation, and the Episcopal Church, historically, is positioned to answer that call.”

He cited the Anglican heritage of the Via Media, a middle road between Catholic tradition and Protestant reform. In the last election, some Catholic bishops wanted to withhold Communion from pro-choice politicians. “That is the opposite of the way the Episcopal Church has approached political issues,” Danforth said.

He expressed his hope that the Church, for its own sake, and the sake of the world could put disagreements over same-sex relationships behind it. “The idea that a Church of less than 1 percent of the American population should be engaging itself in inside baseball is kind of ridiculous, really,” Danforth said.

The other 99 percent of the American population “doesn’t care who the bishop of X or Z isis,” or whether a rite for blessing same-sex relationships “is available in the Prayer Book or on the internet,” he added.

“I am not into the wording of any resolutions,” Danforth said. “My argument is ‘What comes first? You have to keep your eyes on the prize, and I would say the prize is answering Christ’s call to a ministry of reconciliation.”

Danforth has been speaking out recently on what he sees as the negative impact of the religious right in national politics. At the press conference he said Americans are asking themselves: "Why are religious people driving us apart? Why aren't they trying to bring us together?"

Rachel Zoll of the AP was at the press conference. Here is her story.

I was on my way back from former Senator John Danforth's afternoon press conference, about which more in a minute or two, when I ran into these three Diocesan Council members looking suspiciously lighthearted, perhaps because they were not indoors breathing convention center air. Left to right, the Rev. Karla Woggon, rector of St. Andrew's, College Park, council moderator and convention deputy (one of our four alternate was taking her place on the floor); the Rev. Richard Downing, rector of St. James, Capitol Hill, and the Rev. Patricia Downing, alternate deputy and rector of Good Shepherd, Silver Spring.

The Associated Press has a solid report on last night's hearing.

The Houston Chronicle says Integrity, the gay and lesbian caucus in our Church feels confident that it has the votes in the House of Deputies to defeat calls for a moratorium on the consecration of partnered gay bishops. I think they are right, but the House of Bishops is another matter, and because a majority of diocesan bishops must consent to the election of any new bishop, the bishops can enact an undeclared moratorium unilaterally. Whether they would do so is an open question.

The Telegraph says three dioceses are proceeding with plans to break away from the Church. I would imagine that one of these is Pittsburgh, and I am curious whether the settlement in Calvary v. Duncan will complicate Bishop Duncan's plans. It seems that it would. At least that is my impression after reading this, this and this.

Matthew Davies' account of the meeting for Episcopal News Service is here.

And have a look at this blog posting from the Rev. Andrew Gerns of the Diocese of Bethlehem.

Would you be disapointed if I told you that no one committed news?

More than 1,500 people packed into a hotel ballroom, maybe another 120 out in the hall. All the big names stepping to the microphone to have their three-minutes' say. Tens of thousands of words spoken. Some of them eloquently, others not so much. One humorous moment--yup, just one--when, by the luck of the sign-up sheet, Bishop Dorsey Henderson of the committee called the name of Gene Robinson right after calling the name of Robert Duncan, and that juxtaposition drew a laugh from the crowd. ("I was reading the list," Bishop Henderson said.)

I don't think anyone said anything I hadn't heard before. And I am not sure that anyone said anything that will be remotely helpful to the committee. Its 19-members basically served as something for the speakers to look at. God bless them.

My hunch is that reporters who don't lead their stories with: "Division was on display as Episcopalians approached the final deadline for responding to etc...." will lead with Bishop Duncan's claim that reconciliation "at this point in our life is impossible." What he means by that, or whether he meant anything other than "I 'm the decider," is unclear, but you can build a nice doom and gloom lead out of it, and reporters seem wedded to the idea that if 12% of the Church of thereabouts were to take a hike, the remaining 88 percent, which includes most of our largest dioceses, would wither, while the remaining 12 percent would flourish.

I will pick through my notes and serve up some of the better quotes tomorrow. And I will have links to the press coverage. It seems utterly unlikely to me that any Windsor-related resolutions will be on the floor before Friday, and that's being optimistic.

In the posting just below I suggested that the Rt. Rev. N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, noted Scripture scholar, etc. was either supremely egotistical or brutally calculating in sending a 4,400+ word critique of our two-month old Special Commission's report to our Convention just a few hours before the last public hearing on the resolutions contained in that report. I think perhaps I was being harsh.

It is also possible that he is criminally naive.

Bishop N. T. Wright, noted Scripture scholar, Bishop of Durham and member of the commission that produced the Windsor Report has released a paper stating that the resolutions proposed by the Special Commission that I've been writing about are insufficient.
I am going to post the paper down beneath the keep reading button, but I'd like to say how deeply disappointed I am that the bishop, with whom I had a long and, for me, quite meaningful interview a few weeks ago, has chosen to insert himself in our Church's affairs at this delicate time and in this ham-fisted way.

Here we have a closely-argued 4,400+ word analysis of preliminary resolutions that were published more than two months ago that arrives at our convention just hours before the final public hearing of the legislative committee that will craft the resolutions that will eventually be sent to the floor. It is either wildly egotistical or exceedingly calculating to intervene in another Church’s life in this fashion. Either one supposes that the Convention can drop whatever else it is doing, make a close reading of arguments that for some reason could not be put before it earlier, and adopt one’s position without modification, or one realizes that this is outcome is unlikely and this effort insulting, and one doesn’t care.

That the report materialized at the afternoon meeting of the Windsor-related legislative committee in the hands of a board member of the American Anglican Council, suggests the latter interpretation. Bishop Wright can now rise back above the fray, while the Howard Ahmanson-funded interest groups within our Church claim that we were “warned” about whatever consequences the bishop and his allies intend to advocate.

While there is much that I object to in Bishop Wright’s paper, my principal concern is the bishop’s attempt to speak as though “the Communion c’est moi.”

He writes:

“I speak therefore, not as an Englishman telling my American cousins what to do (I am well aware of the dangers of that position!) but as a member of an international and multicultural team which produced a unanimous report for the benefit (we hope) of the whole Anglican Communion.”

While the bishop writes as a member of a team, he is not, in any respect, writing for that team. The notion that his interpretation of the Report is the interpretation of the Report is an attempt to speak for other panel members who have not awarded him their proxy. Nor does he speak for the provinces which have found fault with various parts of the Windsor Report. He writes as one individual drawing on his own experiences within the Communion. As do we all.

Despite my disappointment at Bishop Wright’s 11th hour descent upon our convention, I do recommend reading his entire paper. If you don’t you will miss this sentence: “In particular (references are to paragraphs of the Report), there is a strong note of sorrow for the way in which ECUSA has 'contributed to division in the Body of Christ' (7) and followed the pattern of America's imperial actions in the world.”

If I am not mistaken this equates the consecration of a duly elected bishop of our Church (an action which is “imperial” if that word now means neither requiring nor even suggesting that other Churches follow suit) with a preemptive war that has taken tens of thousands of lives and diverted billions of dollars from alleviating human misery.

This is not a compass we should consult for moral direction.

My one consolation is that the inelegant way in which Bishop Wright has entered the arena almost assures a reaction against his position. He did not intend to push our convention to the left, but through tactical ineptitude, that is likely what he has done. That, and making the task of the legislative committee striving to find a way forward for our Church and our Communion much more difficult than it was six hours ago.

Click below to read the paper

Read more »