Very interesting. I had almost forgotten about the statement from Canterbury in Advent (which was not put exactly the way that Durham does).

I would think that those "particularly unsympathetic" might be those who consecrated Robinson; perhaps even those involved in civil lawsuits. I really don't know. Those involved in "clear boundary crossings" have, unfortunately, already absented themselves (to GAFCon), and those irregularly consecrated have not been invited in the first place. But I think what worries the Archbishop is the attitude of so many of the American (in particular) bishops: that they haven't done anything wrong and that all is well and the people who say it isn't are crazy. At least one can say of the foreign bishops involved in "boundary crossings" that they do not recognize their actions as normal -- they see them as tragic. But to show up to the Conference with a "we can do no wrong" attitude is a killer.

I agree that the attitude that one can do no wrong would be a conference killer. For that reason I am confident that Bishop Wright's invitation will be rescinded immediately.

Jim, you're one of our hosts here, and you get to be snarky. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But if I were uncorking high-proof snark for my guests, I'd want to have some mixer on hand, in case they don't like it straight. Would you agree that's a pretty stiff drink you just poured, or is my tolerance just too low?

Chris, I think Bishop Wright reaps what he sows in terms of the tone of his adversaries.

Well, I have thought Bishop Wright wrong before, and I wonder if he won't be wrong now. That is, will the letter really deal at all with support for Windsor and Covenant? If it does, surely it must fall as hard on Presiding Bishop Venables and the Southern Cone as it does (if it does) on Americans. If the purpose of Windsor and of the Covenant is "the highest level of communion possible," then those who have declared communion and the Communion broken are more in violation of Windsor. We have taken the abuse, and we have borne the boundary violations, but we have not walked away. Nigeria, on the other hand, whose representatives in Virginia have built the core of their legal case on a state of dissolution of the Communion,have walked away. Uganda, whose bishops have said they cannot attend Lambeth if Americans or Canadians are present, has walked away. If, as Bishop Wright said, Windsor and Covenant are not about homosexuality, then it is those who have chosen to be, as he described them, "super apostles," who have contravened Windsor and Covenant.

Marshall Scott

Marshall: As I said above, Nigeria et all have already decided they do not want to be at Lambeth -- perhaps that is because they have declared themselves unwilling to abide by the instruments of Communion. The point here is that those on the other end of the spectrum should be equally honest about their intentions: there are many American bishops who are equally obstinate about their refusal to listen to statements from the instruments of Communion. Why, in other words, bother going to Lambeth unless you intend to take it seriously? (And "taking it seriously" means allowing your own agendas, whether you are +Akinola or +Schori, to be circumscribed by the teaching of the whole Church.)

Will Archbishop Gomez be receiving a letter? He heads up the Covenant process, yet - contrary to Windsor - he participates at the consecration of boundary-crossing bishops.

Dear Samuel Keyes- the Presiding Bishop's last name is Jefferts Schori - I think TEC bishops are willing to listen but also there are many that think we already have enough "instruments" - the Quadrilateral, common mission work - etc. I would refer you to Jenny Ta Paa's excellent remarks at the Covenant conference at GTS last week here.

Samuel Keyes:

With respect: we as a Communion are not of one mind about what it means "to listen to statements from the instruments of Communion." Uganda was exlicit in saying Ugandan bishops would not participate in Lambeth because it would not "resolve" issues - apparently in some legislative fashion. However, Lambeth has never by its own definitions been legislative, and Archbishop Williams' agenda for this one is no different. Many of us would argue that "listening" need not necessarily result in obedience to be meaningful, even if one could meaningfully "obey" an instrument that is not "legislative" in some sense.

Moreover, in the last few years the responses of the varous Instruments have been unclear. Lambeth may have expressed on some issues "the mind of the Communion," if we mean by that the opinions of the majority of bishops; but not being legislative, it cannot really mean more than that. Archbishop Williams has been ambivalent. The ACC has been constructive, but has not met frequently enough; and the Primates, who have certainly spoken frequently and relatively clearly, have been singularly assertive of authority that no one has ever formally granted them (and, really, it's only a few of the Primates who drove that).

I think we do take them seriously. We simply do not attribute to them more authority than they have traditionally had (and only the Primates have claimed more).

Marshall Scott

Gomez is an interesting point. With everyone, I think, the actions of the past are not ultimately as important as one's willingness to engage in the Communion relations of the future; so it is never a simple question, and I do not see Canterbury asking anyone else not to come. But as I said in my first comment above, there is a difference between someone like Gomez who sees his actions as temporary and of tenuous justification, and someone like former PB Griswold who engages in willing duplicity (think the Primates' meeting immediately prior to Robinson's consecration) and thus can hardly be trusted to even say what he really thinks at a Communion-wide meeting, much less listen.

American Bishops willing to listen? Why should the Communion trust bishops of a province who are not even willing to abide by their own canons? (The examples are not limited to the most recent illegal "depositions" and authoritarian interventions into diocesan affairs but include the widespread acceptance of Communion without Baptism, the official and unofficial approval of same-sex blessings, and the apparent impotence of the province to discipline clergy who refuse to acknowledge even basic Creedal Christianity). I am sure that Jenny Ta Paa's remarks have some wisdom to them; the Covenant should not be made out to be some sort of panacea. But the incoherence and discord in the Communion is not going to be confronted by the gospel of politeness (which is the only sort of "listening" I see from most American bishops) but by penitence. It is not a question of whether we have "enough" or "not enough" instruments; it is that they have either failed or been routinely ignored. To say that what we have right now is "enough" is like saying that a dam was enough to hold back the stream when they dam has already been broken.

The letters the bishop refers to are not in the mail, calling into question everything he purports to know about them. See a subsequent item "About those letters" for more detail.

Does the covenant mandate a literal understanding of the Resurrection as described in Article iv which says the risen Christ is sitting in heaven with his flesh and bones, etc?
Also It's difficult to listen without prjudice to those who refuse to accept our PB because they have determined that females are not qualified to be bishops, much less Primates.