This is an outstanding and informative response. Thank you so much, Bishop Katharine for your well written and well thought out response. This response is not only respectful, but it reminds us of where we've come from and where we are going.

This is excellent. Thank you for your leadership, My Lady.

Amen! Thank you, Bishop Katharine.

Such a blessing all around: clarifying, gracious, and rooted in our tradition and discernment.

With respect, I don't think you mean "the Church of Scotland." The Kirk of Scotland is of presbyterian polity and is not in the habit of making bishops for anyone. Rather, you mean the Scottish Episcopal Church.

One would have thought the name not that hard for you to remember.

Now, that quibble out of the way, otherwise well done.

Malcolm French+

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bishop Katharine, for your leadership and clear and wise words. The Episcopal Church knows who she is, and we are grateful for your leadership in stating what we know of ourselves.

Reposted for Rod Gillis:

Great address, good rejoinder, and as a bonus, a good rejoinder to the side swipe made by Tom Wright in Durham about the consecration in L.A.

Now THAT is a response! I vote Primate Schori for Archbishop of Canterbury.

Eric

And the people say AMEN.

(Editor's note: Thanks for the comment. Full name next time, please.)

Brava!! Superb response.

Home run!

A terrific example of the truly Anglican (as well as Episcopalian) leadership so painfully absent in the ABC's efforts. Well done, PB: very well done!

In his Pentecost letter,
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2010/5/28/ACNS4704
the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote (a portion of which the PB quotes above),

"I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged."

The italics on "formally" is in the ABC's original. (The PB's letter drops that italics -- I have added them editorially) What do you make of it? Is it to exempt provinces like the Church of England that has gay bishops, but does not admit it? Does it apply to The Episcopal Church -- there has been no formal policy adopted. And then there's border crossing. Have those typically been FORMALLY approved by the Synod or HoB of the offending provinces? Is there a get out of jail free card if you cross borders but don't obtain the sanction of the Synod/HoB?

How blessed our Church is that the Spirit has called you Bishop Katharine to be our leader in this time. Such a well written and thoughtful letter. I am proud to be a priest in our church.

John B., I suggest the use of italics is meant to be inferred by the reader as a warning to us dissenters and an invitation to the homophobic community among the HOB and the HOD to try to undo what TEC has successfully done. Thanks be to God, TEC reaffirmed by our resolution of GC 2009 that we follow our Constitution and Canons and are not governed by 'recommendations' from Reports or 'proposals' from English Archbishops. No one should be fooled into thinking that TEC has not already FORMALLY met with the ABC's disapproval. I urge us all to follow our PB's fine example and accept his chagrin with joy in our hearts and prayers for his return to Anglicanism.

The Presiding Bishop is to be applauded for this excellent response to the Archbishop of Canterbury! She is much more pastoral than the ABC.

Gary Paul Gilbert

How ironic that the ABC would presume to exclude a prominent theological position from ecumenical dialogue. Did we get the translation of the Scriptures wrong - "the biggest bullies shall set us free?"

++Katharine's statement deserves a place amongst Hooker and the others who have inspired us through the ages.

Thanks to our Presiding Bishop. Well said.

Torey Lightcap

"Home run" indeed! Arguably my favorite quote:

"We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard?"

Susan Russell

Interesting to note that KJS is affirming the Scottish Episcopal Church's claim to having founded the Anglican Communion:

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/about/history/
"The Episcopal Church is persecuted following the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745, but effectively founds the Anglican Communion through the consecration of Samuel Seabury."

And then there is this reminder that the English used the Penal Laws to persecute the Episcopal Church of Scotland,

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/about/history_chapter/6_risings_and_persecution/

"During this time of persecution the Scottish bishops consecrated Samuel Seabury as the first bishop in the United States. It was a significant act. Before the establishment of the United States, following the War of Independence, clergy serving in America had been ordained in London. The clergy of Connecticut elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop and he sought consecration in England.

"The oath of royal supremacy proved too difficult a problem, however, and he came to Scotland and was consecrated in Aberdeen on 14 November 14 1784, the first Anglican bishop to serve outside the British Isles. It was the beginning of the world-wide Anglican Communion of Churches.

"The reign of King George III, which began in 1760, saw a relaxing of the rigorous enforcement of the penal laws and the clergy began to hold services more openly, and some chapels were built."

A portrait of Seabury is shown with the caption "Samuel Seabury, the first bishop of the Anglican Communion"

The ABC wants to return to the days of persecuting its own.

Note to Rowan: this is why we have primates.

Posted for Chris Hansen living in London area: (ed. note- I believe Chris means ACNA not AMiA in his comments)

..I think I'd like to weigh in now that the ABC and the PB have both made their statements.

Williams is clearly the loser in all this. I cannot believe that he thought that anything would change in TEC's position after his statement (can they unconsecrate a bishop?) but the key concept in the PB's statement is "colonialism". Englishpeople are very very sensitive these days to charges of colonialism. Williams himself, being Welsh, probably has the very same feelings as those who were colonised by Great Britain as Wales was (I believe) the first country colonised by England. As the PB well knows, colonialism can work both ways--the countries of the Global South are, in a way, in the same boat as TEC, ACC, and the Church of Ireland. Both were colonised by GB, but TEC was the first church to be emancipated, as it were, from the Church of England.

Making common cause with the Global South won't butter any parsnips with the
Nigerians, Singaporeans, or the Southern Coneheads, but it'll sting Williams to the core. It isolates him in a way that the theological and spiritual arguments for justice in the Church do not.

Next moves: On the part of the ABC there is little or nothing he can do. As has been pointed out, Williams has no authority to expel TEC representatives from any body. He could, I suppose, not invite TEC bishops to the next Lambeth Conference, but that is 8 years away and I don't believe he wants to be Archbishop for that long. In any case, a punishment that is 8 years away from the "crime" isn't very toothy and will not prevent TEC from going its own way. He may not invite the PB to the next Primates' Meeting (whenever that is), but I can't believe that she would be particularly irked by that.

Windsor is dead. The church in NZ recently voted against the section on punishments for breaking the covenant. Without enforcement it is irrelevant and I would suggest that many provinces won't bother with it, either because it's toothless (Nigerians probably wouldn't want to join a group that couldn't boot out miscreants), or because it's irrelevant. One does note that the ABC hasn't said much about Windsor recently. I would be surprised if it came up at the next GC.

On the part of the PB and TEC: I think that her emphasis on common ministry
in partnership with other provinces should take precedence over the instruments of the Anglican Communion. Money that would go to supporting those instruments should be _publicly_ redirected toward mission on the ground with the other partners. This should also help make it clear to those dioceses in TEC that are lobbying for Windsor that TEC intends to form different kinds of partnerships within the Anglican family and that Windsor is dead.

One other consequence of all this: I think that it is now likely that the ABC will recognise the AMIA (or whatever they are calling themselves) as the Anglican Communion member in the United States and Canada. It won't happen overnight, but probably soon after the next General Convention. However, since few North Americans care deeply about remaining in the AC if that prevents them from carrying out their mission of justice and proclaiming the Gospel, this will not prevent AMIA from splitting (probably along Evangelical/Catholic lines, or ordaining/not ordaining women lines, or even both) and fissuring into many little sects, just as its predecessor seceders from TEC have done. The only secession from Anglicanism that was not about the personality of the leader of the secessionists was Methodism, and Wesley
never considered that he'd left Anglicanism anyway. AMIA is all about Duncan at the moment, and when they all begin to quarrel, he'll excommunicate the
others, they will excommunicate him, and the fun will begin.

Rowan, it could all have been different. Your cognitive dissonance between your public statements on issues of justice for lesbian and gay people and your private opinions (often expressed before your elevation) has finally reaped the whirlwind. Did you ever even think that these tactics would bring TEC "into line"? Is it just for show? Does it further the preaching of the Gospel? Did it bring the Kingdom of God any nearer?

I imagine that the verdict of history (I would not presume to mention the pearly gates in this context) will not say that Rowan oversaw the breakup of the AC, but that he threw away the best chance for evangelisation ever presented to an Archbishop of Canterbury since Augustine landed in England.
--
Chris Hansen

Thanks, Chris, for a really interesting appraisal of the situation, which makes a great deal of sense to me. And I think that the statement was really an excellent one. I do have to say, though, that like Malcolm French I was very much bothered by the confusion of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church of Scotland. Most people wouldn't care, but the Scots certainly do (and a few geeky historians, as well).

Scot Peterson, Oxford

Very fine indeed. She captures well the multitextured ethos and spirit of Anglicanism and the complexity of the work of the Holy Spirit among us.

Re: Scottish Episcopal Church - note corrected copy released by ENS- I think the PB was really "hot" when she wrote it. She does know the difference.

My reply to some rather simplistic historiographical assertions.

http://contemplativevernacular.blogspot.com/2010/06/writing-histories-is-not-plain-task.html

Chris Hansen says: "Windsor is dead. The church in NZ recently voted against the section on punishments for breaking the covenant. Without enforcement it is irrelevant and I would suggest that many provinces won't bother with it, either because it's toothless (Nigerians probably wouldn't want to join a group that couldn't boot out miscreants), or because it's irrelevant."

I don't think the covenant would be irrelevant completely. It would help reaffirm that each province hasn't "strayed" away from the essentials of the Anglican faith. It would help remind all provinces of what we do have in common, which some countries have expressed skepticism. But, maybe the word "covenant" would not be the correct term for it. Maybe an "affirmation"? That sounds more positive, though I doubt many would care to sign it.

Eric Sinkula

This is like the voice of sanity and grace. While others urge a "cutting off", this group of Christians recognises our unity is in Christ, and has the grace to recognise the image of God in those they disagree with. There is no "cutting off" off advocated - only shared faith in diversity.

Another interesting point she made:

"We look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership possible... the myriad of less formal and more local partnerships across the Communion..."

Exactly.

Here in UK, just because it might come to be said by some: "***We*** are no longer in full communion with TEC", does not actually have the authority it sounds like it has, because significant numbers of individuals will continue to affirm their full communion and indeed agreement with TEC. In fact, parishioners in almost every church. Same in other countries. They will continue to be fully in communion with TEC, whether others like it or not.

There is no one-size-fits-all. And authoritarianism won't stop the move of the Spirit, and the networking of Anglicans around the world who recognise a profound justice issue here, and grace and courage and decency and solidarity.

A few leaders may come to say "You breach the Covenant, you are no longer in communion..." but such words won't stop a movement which worldwide says, "Yes we are still in communion".

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope. There is no agreement in the Church over these issues. We can get tribal, and ban each other, etc etc. Or we can make space for grace, and acknowledge integrity in diversity, and hand the limits of our human searchings over to God, and get on with love and service, in union and communion with the living Christ, and hence with one another, whether we like it or not.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no authority to tell TEC to abandon its striving for justice and wholeness and prospering in this issue. There is no consensus. As Anglicans, many of us find far more in common with TEC than with the marginalisation of gay and lesbian (and transgendered like myself) that contributes in some places to a climate of terrible hate and homophobia.

TEC is right, with continuing grace, to affirm the full ministries of women, of men, regardless of their orientation, and they have the courage to be honest in their solidarity and example. They are admirable.

Eric:

There are certainly some here who think some covenant might be useful, and that this Covenant, without the Fourth Section, might be liveable, if not perfect. However, I can't imagine General Convention confirming this Covenant with the Fourth Section (and having served as a Deputy, I have an educated imagination), and don't imagine it would be confirmed without the Fourth Section, without a lot of heated discussion.

So, while there may well be an Anglican Covenant, and some folks will want that to define membership in the Anglican Communion, I don't think it will seem all that relevant for the Episcopal Church.

Marshall Scott

Marshall,

Do you mean "....and don't imagine it would be confirmed WITH the Fourth Section, without a lot of heated discussion"?

If the entire covenant, as is with the 4th section, is required for signing on to the AC in full partnership then I don't see the Episcopal Church affirming it either. Nor do I personally want to sign onto the 4th section since it was created based out of fear.

But, I didn't see much wrong with the other sections. Did you?

Eric Sinkula

Eric, yes. Even if there is 'nothing wrong' with a proposed covenant in content, as a phenomenon it is indeed errant. Anglicanism is not a world-wide Church or a world-wide denomination. It involves a unique way of being Church that is defined in practice by the use of the Book of Common Prayer adapted for local use, and by the absence of any other creeds of formulas of fidelity than the historic Christian Creeds. Should a Church ever adopt the proposed Covenant, especially as a requirement for membership in the Anglican Communion, it has surrendered any Anglican understanding of what it is to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Anglicanism as an expression of Christian faith has resisted the temptation to document its distinctions and to define its membership accordingly. A new covenant, by any name, is a radical redefinition of Anglicanism by a significant compromise of its apostolicity. I suggest people need to ask themselves if this is what they truly desire.

Eric:

No. I'm reasonably certain that General Convention would not confirm the current Draft if it included the Fourth section. If that becomes someone's definition of being "in the Communion," be that as it may. Second, I think it might be possible that General Convention might take an action like Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia by expressing substantial but not complete agreement with Sections One, Two, and Three, and without Four; but that action would only come (if it came) after long discussion and debate. Once again, if that is for someone, even Canterbury, somehow "not enough," I think General Convention would accept those consequences.

However, with all due respect, Jim, I think at some point a document will come to be that the Episcopal Church in General Convention will agree to. I think it will happen in reaction to GAFCON/FOCA's affiliation around the Jerusalem Declaration and a handful of churches' agreement with Rowan's Covenant (separate groups because I think most if not all of the GAFCON/FOCA folks will decline Rowan's Covenant as insufficient, and instead return to the Jerusalem Declaration). As the Hebrew Scriptures came together in reaction to Christians assembling the New Testament, I think we will find a need to express positively who we are, instead of looking at the Jerusalem Declaration and/or the Ridley Cambridge Covenant and saying "We're not them." I don't think it will happen quickly, and I may not see it; but I do believe, based on my observation of history, that it will happen.

You wrote, Jim, "Anglicanism as an expression of Christian faith has resisted the temptation to document its distinctions and to define its membership accordingly." Well, maybe; but the loss of the gentlemen's agreement that was the Communion as we knew it, I think that's lost. "We do not yet know what we shall look like, but we know we shall be changed." I think that is not only in the hereafter, but in our lived theology.

Marshall Scott

Marshall,

I'm wondering if a document (formal agreement) is an appropriate substitute or successor to the "gentlemen's agreement" that is no longer the norm for the Communion.

Ironically, the self-proclaimed Global South may be pointing the more salient way forward for Communion: a network around shared interests and (I hope) common mission. Of course, I'd like to see that without the rancor and far more positively expressed, but it seems to be the more incarnational model to which the PB's letter points (and even the ABC's letter alludes once the covenant/Windsor language is set aside.)

I see signs of this approach appearing already in the diocese-diocese mission relationships that are trumping the communion-breaking declarations of their provinces.

Put another way, I think the centralization and formalization of a documented covenant may be almost as dated as the informal agreement amongst colonial bishops.

Richard,
why "ironically"? the Global South has thought about the best way forward and settled on a network. Why is this ironic?
John Sandeman

Hi, John:
Only because I don't suppose too many in the TEC are about to raise up the Global South as an example of Communion just now. Lots of villification in the mix. Irony is always a matter of perspective!

Richard:

That subset within the Global South movement that are also the leadership of the GAFCON/FOCA action are the most vocal, and the most prone to organize. As I recall from Bishop Anis' proposal, for them the Jerusalem Declaration is a central place to claim agreement. Again, it's a positive statement, mostly: "these are things we agree on;" but I don't see it as all that different. It is perhaps more a Reformation-type "confession" than the draft Covenant; but it is the claimed "rallying point." I appreciate you were referring to your own perspective as "ironic," and not the thought that they should have mission-focused agreements. However, I think there will be a struggle between those Global South folks who commit to FOCA (and in consequence largely abandon Canterbury), and those who will be more interested in mission-focused connections (including possibly Canterbury).

I think mission-focused relationships are what will carry us through the next generation while some things get sorted out. I do think personally that it's ironic that the FOCA folks would strain at one "gentlemen's agreement," only to replace it with another; but humans seeking to incarnate their control needs (faster than their faith in Christ) is another demonstration of the fallenness of creation.

Marshall Scott

Marshall,
I think both you and Richard see different parts of what is a very big canvas.
Yes the Gafcon group is keen on the jerusalem declaration and wants a theologically strong agreement within their network. But they do not appear to me to be that keen on setting up much in the way of structures. certainly nothing like the Anglican Communion Office for example. This reflects the evangelical influence on their thinking which prioritises local mission over wider church structures. And so their praxis more closely resembles what Richard is waxing ironically about.
It is interesting that you have moved towards the Peter Jensen view of the Communion: less emphasis on the old structures which have proved ineffective and the development of new bonds. No-one kicked out, but a new version of the Communion based on relationship.

John Sandeman

Thanks, Marshall, for the deeper analysis. If I read you correctly, it's clear that the somewhat separate direction the Global South is attempting to take provides them no escape from the challenges before the greater Communion.

Pointing back to the substance of the Presiding Bishop's letter, neither absenting ourselves nor "absenting" others will resolve the matters at hand.

Thank you Bishop Katharine! What a wonderful statement of who we are and how we hope to live out the call to us in the Baptismal Covenant. You are so traditional (in the best sense of that word)! //Tony

John, I won't claim to be an authority on Peter Jensen's perspective. I don't see, however, a single communion with "no-one kicked out."

I would agree with Canterbury that too little connection isn't Communion, but share the concerns of many that too much, too great a hope for a "church" as Rome recognizes a "church," isn't Communion, either. I do think, at least for a while, new relationships will result in new gatherings. However, I don't expect any of the new gatherings to incorporate everyone. How are we happy that no one is kicked out, if not everyone is invited? So, I do see old structures fading, and a dependence again on more direct relationships of one national/provincial church to another. I just don't see future meetings that everyone attends, or even that everyone is invited to; and that was what we used to think of as the Anglican Communion.

Marshall Scott

Marshall, Perhaps you and I (and maybe Peter Jensen) agree on a future that includes a formal communion with no-one kicked out, but a new emphasis on meetings and relationships that may not include all. I am sure no-one will be entirely happy with this.

Behind the ABC´s --and Windsor´s-- argument for the need for a "Covenant" lay the claim that without one our ecumenical partners wouldn´t be able to tell who it is that they are dealing with. This is a profoundly mistaken assumption.

For it assumes that in order to talk with Anglicans, the Romans, for example, have to have one single identified body authorized to represent the whole AC.

This claim is in fact a demand for us to become structurally more similar the RC´s in order to talk with them, --and perfectly in keeping with the general RC attitude towards ecumenical dialogue since the death of Paul VI, an attitude of, "Sure, we can be reunited --when you agree with and behave like US."

What the properly Anglican response ought to have been --a response unimaginable to this ABC, is something more like, "Well, we are NOT a single Church so we CANNOT represent every Anglican Church in our dialogue with you RC´s. You will have to have ecumenical dialogue one-on one with each church in the AC."

The two big errors of the ABC named by the PB´s excellent letter (colonialism and failure of nerve --the sin of the closeted) are not limited in scope to the role of GLTB people in the life of the Church, but even more importantly, to the traditional Anglican understanding of what the church is --our ecclessiology.

The ABC and many a Brittish ecumenist have been working from a Roman ecclessiology. TEC, in keeping with our Prayer Book, works from a baptismal and contextual ecclessiology --one that understands the Gospel and our attempts to live it as necessarily incarnated in a given cultural context. The ecclessiology of TEC is a Baptismal Ecclessiology --a fancy way of saying that authority in the church flows from the baptized, by delegation, up to Conventions, Bishops and Primates. For they were NOT buried with Christ at their consecrations, but at their baptisms, like the rest of us all, when we were grafted into the Vine, and made into one Body by the one who "in his own body broke down the dividing wall."

Rome may have imposed its ways upon the British isles at the Synod of Whitby. But we are now (only now!) witnessing the rise of the contextual Churches responding to Roman and British-- colonial assumptions that to be valid, "others" must be like them, marching in lockstep.

Our stand against the Covenant, therefore is not simply a stand vs. the systematic oppression of GLTB´s. (Sometimes by closeted people!) It is even more profoundly a stand against a colonial imperialism that employs the argument of church unity to impose uniformity and exercise control.

But TRUE unity as the Athanasian Creed argues, is NOT uniformity, but unity in diversity. Like the Trinity itself, the Church, is ONE (at least we say be believe that) AND VARIED. and thus restoring the image and likeness of God. The proponents of the Covenant want us to be ONE and UNIFORM, and thus NOT the image and likeness of God.

We MUST NOT "confuse the persons¨ nor "divide the substance" of God --nor of the Body of Christ.

Juan Oliver [name added by ed. - ed.]

Well said.

Paul Bolt

Thank you thank you Presiding Bishop Schori. It puts a skip in my walk as an Episcopal priest, knowing you are there
taking risks to move all of us into a higher level of Christ consciousness.

rev. sandy blake