Anglicans United & Latimer Press

Armstrong and the church’s governing board say the split came from an impasse over ideology — a conservative parish at odds with its state and national leaders and saw no hope for change. A few dozen other congregations have made similar decisions nationally, and the Episcopal Church, the U.S. chapter of the broader 77 million-member Anglican Communion, has grown increasingly at odds with its international counterparts.

But O’Neill, Colorado’s bishop, says that’s a smoke screen for a different issue: a priest accused of financial misconduct who is being restored to power by his vestry.

Armstrong has been suspended from his post since December while the Colorado diocese — an elected committee and an independent lawyer — investigated him. He denies wrongdoing and dismisses the investigation as the bishop’s mission to discredit him. He describes the probe as the bishop’s “terrorist tactics” run by “prosecutors for hire.”

O’Neill planned to mail letters about the findings of the investigation to parishioners Tuesday night and said it included six specific charges in what is the ecclesiastical equivalent of an indictment.

Armstrong said he is ready to rebut each one.

Parishioners are divided, leaving many to wonder what Sunday’s services will be like. Some recognize Armstrong as their rightful rector, while others will see him as an ousted priest who’s violating church law by even setting foot in the downtown cathedral.

“I don’t know who’s running the church quite frankly,” said Jack Scrivner, a former vestry member who’s been a parishioner for nearly 30 years.

Those who support the secession fault the U.S. Episcopal Church for taking a relaxed stance on moral issues such as human sexuality and Scripture. They welcome their new diocese, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a U.S.-based diocese of the Church of Nigeria that was formed to give discouraged conservative congregations a place to go.

Others are angered that church leaders made such a big decision without consulting the congregation.

They think the investigation into Armstrong has been sound and now accuse the vestry of interfering with getting to the bottom of serious allegations.

“This came as a total shock to us,” said Jan Malvern, who is part of a group of more than 100 parishioners concerned with the church’s leadership and financial picture.

The church’s average Sunday attendance is about 800.

O’Neill removed the vestry from power Monday and maintains that Armstrong is on administrative leave. That means little to them, because they no longer recognize O’Neill’s authority.

Both sides claim ownership of the $17 million property and expect a legal fight.

The Colorado diocese plans to offer an alternative place to hold Sunday service for people who aren’t willing to leave the Episcopal Church, O’Neill said.

Many members who oppose the actions of the vestry and Armstrong may show up for the service anyway, a few members predict.

“I don’t believe that anyone can keep me out of my church,” Malvern said, “so I will be there.”

The turmoil at Grace was being observed by other Colorado Springs Episcopal organizations Tuesday.

The Rev. Paul Lautenschlager, rector at St. Michael’s Episcopal Church on Tudor Road, said: “It’s a very sad time for me and for all Episcopalians in Colorado Springs. It is difficult for us because Grace is the mother church. It was through that church that St. Michael’s came into being in 1957.

“I’m very sad and continue to pray for the people of Grace and St. Stevens, the leadership of Grace, Bishop O’Neill, and the Episcopal Church.”

The parish, Grace Church and St. Stephen's Parish in Colorado Springs, is a largely conservative congregation that disagrees with the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate gay bishops and sanction same-sex unions.

The parish decided to leave the denomination over the weekend, in large part because of a decision made last week by the denomination's House of Bishops, said Alan Crippen, a parishioner and spokesman for the congregation.

Answering an ultimatum from archbishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the Episcopal bishops rejected a demand to create a parallel leadership structure for the minority of Episcopalians, like the members of Grace Church and St. Stephen's, who oppose the church's stand on homosexuality.

"Our read was that it is just curtains for theological conservatives in the Episcopal Church," Crippen said. "There was a lot of scrambling over the weekend. We thought that the House of Bishops would delay and obfuscate like they usually do. Everyone here was just shocked that they were so decisive in spurning the rest of the communion."

After Monday's announcement of the parish's action, Bishop Robert O'Neill of Colorado dissolved the parish's vestry, adding that he would appoint a temporary priest and officers and would offer an alternative worship site for those in the congregation who wanted to stay with the denomination.

"The fact is, people may leave the Episcopal Church, but parishes cannot," O'Neill said in a statement.

The congregation intends to hold on to its campus, which occupies a downtown city block and was recently appraised at $17 million, Crippen said. The diocese has argued, as others have elsewhere, that parishes hold property in trust for the Episcopal Church. Both sides said it is quite likely that the dispute over the property could lead to litigation.

The vestry, or lay leaders, of Grace Church and St. Stephen's said it will affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a missionary diocese of the Church of Nigeria with offices in Virginia.

This article appeared on page A - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle

You know this issue of homosexuality is as old as the hills. I remember reading in the Guardian Weekly (UK) some years ago that in 1957, 50 years ago. The Wolfenden Committee, when about to publish its report on homosexuality and prostitution in Britain, realized it had no collective noun for prostitutes.

Now, it would be presumptuous for me to claim that I know everything that is going on in the African church regarding these issues but they are so serious that they make us ask a fundamental question “where are we heading to in the Anglican Communion?”

In this paper I shall examine what we might call “a view from Africa”. The questions asked are: “Is there a unanimous view from Africa”? or “are there different voices”? “If there are different voices, what are they saying? And, of course, one of the most important questions is “How does the future of the communion seem from Africa?

A brief history of the Anglican Communion in Africa
The Church in Africa claims to have been planted in the first century of the Christian era, during the apostolic period. If the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is anything to go by, then it can be argued that he was the first African Christian. The missionary activities of St. Mark in the streets of Alexandria and that of St. Barnabas as well ensured not only the Christian presence in Africa but its permanence in historical records. Both the Egyptian and Ethiopian Churches kept the light of Christ burning on the African continent until the missionary era began in earnest in the 19th Century.

From the perspective of the Anglican Church, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Church Missionary Society and the Universities Mission to Central Africa laid strong foundations planting churches in many parts of Africa. From its inception in the 19th Century to the present day, the Anglican Church in Africa has grown rapidly and constitutes today one of the fastest growing parts of the Anglican Communion.

Today, I can assure you that Anglican Christians in Africa speak with one voice in professing that Jesus Christ is their Lord and personal Saviour and that they have been called by God into his Kingdom. The impact of the Anglican Communion in the life of ordinary Christians and the society has been tremendous in areas of education, provision of health services, democratic values, a deep spirituality based on the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and above all the unity of God’s people across ethnic, tribal, national and regional boundaries. But beyond this, through their membership in the Anglican Communion, Anglican Christians in Africa are united with their brothers and sisters across the globe as they strive to work together to proclaim the Kingdom of God with its message of love, forgiveness, compassion and care. Some of our provinces cut across national boundaries and they create and foster a truly united spirit of all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and God. This is the unwavering spirit of our people and here they speak with one voice. We derive our spiritual strength in our unity as Anglicans in the Communion.

The Anglican Communion in Africa since the events of 2003 in America
The events that led to the present crisis in the Anglican Communion are clear to everyone and we shall not belabor the point. Our focus is on Africa where some of the strongest criticisms have come which threatens the existence of the Anglican Communion as we know it today.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams recently said that ‘ECUSA is not a monochrome body, and contains ‘a full range of conviction’. I agree but would also draw a parallel with Anglican provinces in Africa. The African provinces are not a monochrome body as popular belief would suggest. There are different points of view in the various Africa provinces. To think that there is one view is simplistic and a distortion of the truth. We need therefore to give space and credit to the diversity embraced by the African provinces.
I submit to you that there are three voices expressing different views in regard to their relation to the Communion. Here is a brief overview of some of the different voices and the theological basis on which they are based as well as the factors that seem to inform their decisions.
I
n trying to make sense of these voices I am reminded of some wise words that Mr. Justice Holmes, once said in regard to the life of the law.

He said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellowmen, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.”
This judicious comment is applicable to theology. Our understanding of faith and its expression is formed through experience within a given context. Consequently, the African voices reflect their context.

1. The Conservative voice:
(a) The Anglican Church in Nigeria
The first African voice we consider is what we may call the conservative voice. The Anglican Church in Nigeria best exemplifies this voice. The Nigerian Church strongly believes that the issue of homosexuality in the Communion is a cancerous growth which needs to be removed in order to save the Communion from collapsing. It’s a voice of protest and one which advocates separation rather than reconciliation.This is the voice that many people hear coming out of Africa. If we have to put a face to this voice then it would be that of the Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola, CON, DD.

The position of the Anglican Church in Nigeria is well known. It has spoken out loud and clear against homosexuality and same-sex marriages or civil unions. The Nigerian church broke relations with ECUSA after it consecrated an openly gay man, Eugene Robinson of New Hampshire, as a bishop in 2003. The Nigerian church also broke relations with the Anglican Church of Canada after the diocese of New Westminster blessed civil unions of gay couples.

This conservative voice emphasizes the Bible over tradition. It opposes anything that is incompatible with the Bible and to this conservative voice homosexuality is contrary to the Bible. The inspiration behind this conservative voice is not only the Bible but other factors kick in such as cultural, religious and legal considerations.

Homosexuality in most African societies is seen as an abomination. Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe claimed homosexuals were "worse than pigs and dogs. It is perceived to be against the order of nature. Sex is between man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. So in African culture homosexuality was not talked about and any expression was suppressed. In Uganda, for example, the practice – referred to as "carnal knowledge of another against the order of nature" - has been outlawed by president Museveni, it is also illegal in most African countries. "

So the conservative voice echoes the cultural abhorrence of homosexuality. The conservative voice also echoes the political and legal context in which it speaks.

For example, the Nigeria government is in the process of debating a bill which will criminalise same-sex marriage, as well as the "Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations" and "Publicity, procession and public show of same-sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise", on penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment.

Archbishop Akinola has welcomed and defended this bill. In Februaryy 2006, He issued a communique on behalf of the Church of Nigeria Standing Committee stating "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality."

The conservative voice is, perhaps unconsciously, also influenced by interfaith strife. Nigeria is a country split between Christian and Muslim population – this is undoubtedly a factor in the Church wanting to maintain a conservative position on personal and sexual morality as defense against Muslim attacks of permissiveness.
So, the tenor of the conservative voice embodies various streams of influence. The result of the conservative voice is that it has declared the existence of an impaired communion with its counterparts and talks of splitting from the Anglican Communion if the erring provinces do not repent.

The Church of Nigeria two years ago amended its Constitution by redefining its relationship to the Anglican Communion by replacing all former references to "communion with the See of Canterbury “ with "communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the 'Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church'."

The implication of this is that it rejects the primacy of the See of Canterbury which is regarded in the Anglican Communion as one of the defining characteristics of Anglicanism.

The Constitutional change also allowed the Church of Nigeria to create convocations and chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria. This effectively gave legal teeth to the Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas (CANA).So, Akinola’s influence goes beyond Africa to the USA where he has encouraged like-minded Episcopalians to consider cutting ties with ECUSA and organizing themselves under the banner of the Nigerian Anglicans with their more literal views on the Bible.

(b) The Church of the Province of Uganda
Apart from the Church of Nigeria, the Anglican Church in Uganda has also taken a strong stand against the issue of homosexuality. In 2003, the House of Bishops officially broke communion with ECUSA and a year later the Provincial Assembly affirmed that position.

Recently, the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Revd Henry Orombi, stated that he will not sit together with Katherine Jefferts Schori at the forthcoming meeting of the primates in Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania next month.

(c) The Church of the Province of Tanzania
Mention should also be made here of another strong voice of protest from the Province of the Church in Tanzania. On Decemberr 7, 2006, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in Tanzania issued a statement saying that its “communion with the Episcopal Church (USA) is severely impaired in the light of the 75th General Convention’s response to the Windsor Report.

This is the conservative voice from Africa. A voice prepared to exclude those voices or views deemed incompatible with the Bible and its position. A voice relatively quiet on speaking out on life and death issues of poverty, AIDS, and responsible governance.
We must bear in mind that within this voice they are bishops, clergy and laity who do not accept all that this voice represents who are silenced and carried away by a strong undertow.

B. The Liberal Voice
The Anglican Church in Southern Africa
The second African voice we explore is what we may call the liberal voice. The Church of the Province of Southern Africa best exemplifies this voice. And the Most Rev. Njongonkulu Winston Ndungane, the Primate of the Province of Southern Africa is the face to this voice.
A statement of the Synod of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa issued in Septemberr 2003 on the divisions in the Anglican Communion around issues of human sexuality, and concerning homosexuality in particular sums up the liberal voice.

Let me share this statement with you. Inter alia, the statement acknowledged the deep divisions of conviction and understanding in the Communion since the Lambeth Conference of 1998 and that the Bishops of the CPSA themselves were not of one mind on these important matters as well.

The statement outlined the areas of agreement amongst the Bishops. These are the areas. The bishops were of one mind in their desire to be loyal to the mind and heart of our Lord Jesus Christ as well as respect for the Scriptures as the authoritative foundational text of their Faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They were of one mind in their desire to search and interpret the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, “bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation” as well as their respect for each other’s integrity of faith, and each other’s commitment to this search together. They were of one mind in their desire to dialogue and facilitate such dialogue and listening among all their members. The bishops were particularly determined to ensure that members of both homosexual and heterosexual orientation (and practice) were included in such dialogue. They were of one mind in their belief that this is how Jesus would want them to handle this divisive, emotive, and as yet unresolved issue. Concluding the areas of agreement the statement highlighted the bishops conviction that God was leading his Church, and would in his loving way and time bring the Communion through to his light and truth.

The statement then addressed the actions already taken by some Provinces and expressed the mind of the Bishops on these actions in four clear statements.

First, that “the Lambeth Conference is, for the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, the highest body which has over time helped both to reflect and evolve the teaching and policy of our Church on issues of doctrine, faith and morals. As such it behoves all Provinces to treat its decisions with solemn respect.” This is the position of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa and shares the concern of the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he said in a letter to 38 Primates, that “any individual Diocese or even Province that officially overturns or repudiates this Resolution (of the Lambeth Conference) poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion”.
The Bishops acknowledged that the Lambeth Conference is not a Legislative Body. It does not purport to lay down “Anglican Law” or “Rules” for the Provinces.

Thus, while most may regard it as profoundly regrettable, and even undermining of our Communion, for any Province to act contrary to the Resolution in question, it cannot be said that they are acting uncanonically.
Secondly, they stressed that as a Communion of Provinces it was fundamental to our life as Provinces in one Anglican Communion, that we respect the autonomy of each Province. Accordingly they endorsed the resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1988: which states “This Conference… affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.” (Resolution 72.2 of 1988).

Thirdly, the bishops urged the need to respect the integrity of the processes in each Province acting in accordance with their respective Canons and Constitutions.

Finally, the bishops recommended that the issues of doctrine and morals which have arisen, and which are so disturbing to so many of our people across the Communion, must be handled through the structures of our Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates’ meeting, the ACC, and the Lambeth Conference.
The penultimate section of the statement focused on what they termed the mystery of human sexuality. The bishops were of the view that there was a great deal that needed to be learned concerning the gift and mystery of human sexuality, and therefore supported all efforts to promote further study and research. This they counseled needed to go hand in hand with deeper theological reflection on the Scriptures, as well as reflection on unfolding insights into human nature created by God.

The statement also gave support to Archbishop Njongonkulu’s call for an All Africa Conference on Human Sexuality.

In conclusion the statement called and I quote, “on the Provinces, Bishops and Dioceses, and in our Parishes, to be focusing more on God’s Mission to the poor and needy “at our gate”. We are confronted with life and death issues affecting the overwhelming number of our people. We need to be bringing the hope and healing of Jesus to God’s people. Let us look to ourselves as we ponder the challenge of Jesus, spoken to us in Matthew 25:31-46. This is how God will judge his Church, including ourselves.”

The liberal voice in Africa sees the current crisis in the Anglican Communion as diverting the attention of the Church from the major life and death issues in the world. These include, hunger across the world, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the HIV and AIDS pandemic, debt and others.

The context in which the liberal voice speaks was formed in the evils of the Apartheid era which sought to discriminate and dehumanize people. Within this context and experience arose a voice of people steeped in black and post-colonial theology, the theology of liberation, and black consciousness.

In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu: “The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority.... I could not myself keep quiet whilst people were being penalized for something about which they could do nothing, their sexuality. … To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as Apartheid ever was.”

The Constitution of the rainbow nation of South Africa is based on values of dignity, freedom and equality and does not permit ordinary citizens to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Human rights and equality in South Africa’s Constitution obviously influences the churches theological thinking on gender and sexuality. There is another subtle influence that of the concept of Ubuntu which simply means that a person is a person because of others or the community. In other words all people are equal.

The liberal African voice as exemplified by the Church of the Province of Southern Africa acknowledges and gives thanks to God for the role played by gay and lesbian members and encourages the welcoming and affirmation of all members regardless of their sexual orientation, in all the churches of the CPSA.

3. Moderate voices
(a) The Anglican Church in Burundi
The third African voice we discern is the moderate voice. Nicely, snuggled between the conservative and liberal voices. The Anglican Church in Burundi is a good example of this moderate voice in the Communion. In their statement on the issue of homosexuality and same sex-unions, the church has categorically stated that they remain committed to the Anglican Communion and to endeavouring to work with all the Primates who have been entrusted with the leadership of its provinces. In the statement they also indicated that they are committed to the Gospel imperative to maintain unity and communion that is rooted in truth and love. They emphasised their theological understanding of the authentic nature of the Church as being one, holy, catholic and apostolic and affirmed their loyalty to the authority of Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church.

They expressed their hope in prayer that ways will be found to move forward with renewed commitment to “keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Although the Anglican Church in Burundi abhors the events that led to the present crisis in the Communion they have expressed the need to continue to prayerfully encourage understanding and dialogue and re-assess structures and ways of drawing closer to each other rather than walking apart. Their position is one which seeks reliance on the Holy Spirit that will lead to repentance, forgiveness, revival, and healing and urge others in the Communion to work for a Church characterised by justice, and compassion that strives to be a sanctuary of care where truth can be told in love so that Christians can walk together in a way that honours the name of Christ and witness to his reconciling love in a hurting and fragmented world.

Here ends the lessons on the African voices.

Other Factors

There are two factors I seek to draw your attention to that directly or indirectly are influencing the tone and volume of the African voices. The first factor or voice is that of the Global South. The Global South as a body is concerned with a range of subjects, such as social action and economic empowerment. It came about to address some of the power imbalances between North and South that exist within the Church. So the rationale for its existence is commendable.

A worrisome development is the issuance of the Kigali Communiqué by the Primates of the Global South in September 2006 in Rwanda. This caused a theological earthquake measuring 8.6 on the richter scale. It evoked mixed feelings across the Anglican Communion reflecting both the extreme right and extreme left of Anglicanism.
The communiqué claimed to be a unanimous statement presumably speaking for a majority of Anglicans who live in the southern hemisphere!

In the communiqué, the Primates noted that they had asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop a proposal identifying the ways by which an Alternative Primatial Oversight can be set up within the Anglican Communion in order to oversee the work of some of the dioceses in the USA which are not happy with the existing Primate and other bishops. They also indicated that at the next meeting of the Primates in Februaryy 2007 some of the Primates would not recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate and that others would be in an impaired communion with her as a representative of the Episcopal Church in the USA. In this regard, they suggested that another bishop should be present at the meeting so that they could listen to the voices of the dioceses which, in their estimate, abide by the teaching of the Communion.

There are some comments i would like to make regarding this communique.

First, not all Primates associated themselves with the Statement. The Archbishop of Cape Town, for example, did not endorse it and was of the view that there was a deliberate intention to undermine the due processes of the Anglican Communion and the integrity of the instruments of Unity. He called for patience in resolving the present crisis and appealed to his brother Primates to step back from the brink at which the Kigali Communiqué had placed the Anglican Communion calling for a spirit of tolerance and grace in the face of pains of divisions among the Primates.

Secondly, the Primates seemed to have gone ahead of everybody as there was no apparent consultative process that fully engaged the laity, clergy and bishops in the debate within the Global South.This is essential in the current crisis before a final decision is taken on these weighty matters. Surely Primates do not have sole monopoly on wisdom and knowledge. Although some would like to think so!

In a presidential address delivered by the former Archbishop of Sydney and Primate The Most Revd Sir Marcus Loane, he said, “The trouble is that the Bishops are not the Church. The Church is made up of people: it is governed by an elected General Synod; when the synod is not in session, its Standing Committee acts on its behalf. That is as democratic a system of church government as can easily be devised, but it makes it impossible for the Church to speak with a single authoritative voice.

Therefore what the Primate should choose to say, or what the Bishops decide to say may be no more than a personal utterance and may command no more support than those whose views it happens to reflect.”
From this position the Global South’s pronouncement are no more than “Primates utterances” provoking deep thought. For the fundamental and indispensable element of our Anglican identity is that we are both episcopally led and synodically governed.

The other factor influencing the voices from Africa is numbers and the almighty dollar!

These factors can be seen to influence – and at times bring pressure to bear, or even manipulate the situation. Where does ‘power’ lie in the present debate? The provinces in Nigeria have collectively the largest number of Anglican members in the world – more than the Church of England and ECUSA combined! America has long been generous in its hospitality and support for African church projects and its leaders, however, in the current situation, the almighty dollar has been used to strengthen the voice and position of some African bishops who have been invited to the States and given generous incentives. Very tempting indeed for a bishop from a poor African diocese to be feted and offered funds by his American hosts, if he endorses the party line!

One of the things that amazes me in this whole debate is the manner in which lobbying, very perculiar to America, has been used to influence opinion, decisions, and relationships, which results in the creation of a culture of ‘them’ and ‘us’, ‘in’ and ‘out’, and never shall the twain meet. The success of this lobyying has been assisted mainly by the dissemination of information on the internet.

THE African Future
Well then, from this overview it is apparent that the, “view from Africa” varies depending where you stand. The answer to the question, “Is there a unanimous view from Africa”? is no. And the answer to the question, “are there different voices”? is yes. We now know what the voices are and what they are saying and now we address one of the most important questions “How does the future of the communion seem from Africa?
Here I shall share with you my “personal utterances” or reflections. A realistic picture of the future of the Communion from Africa is that it will continue renewed in faith and mission by reassing the present structures and instruments of unity.

The African Provinces are not a monochrome body and the scenario of the African Provinces spliting off as a whole from the Communion to form an alternative Communion is in my view impossible. The only likely possibility in the unlikely event of this happenning is one or two African provinces spliting to align themselves with similar minded provinces.

However the Communion will continue and these are my reasons.

The first point we must understand is that the majority of African Anglicans about 37 million of them are frankly not bothered about the whole debate on sexuality and gay bishops, impaired communion and so forth. A fact not lost on the Windsor Commission who recognized the existence within the Anglican Communion of a large constituency of faithful members who are bemused and bewildered by the intensity of the opposing views on issues of sexuality. This group embraces worshippers who yearn for expressions of communion which will provide stability and encouragement for their pilgrimage. Their voices have been eclipsed by the intensity of sounds on opposing sides of the debate.

The majority of African Anglicans are not bothered because their minds are concentrated on life and death issues of HIV and AIDS, poverty and drought, malaria, dying from starvation and not what the church thinks about sexuality or what colour your pyjamas are! The debate on sexuality is a non – issue for most of our people. And I suspect that for the millions of poor Anglicans Africans in the villages they are not even aware that this controversy is raging on! That’s the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that the minority of Africans who have the luxury to think on this issue don’t what to see the Communion disintegrate, because they value the communion and its bonds of affection, and would prefer to follow the process recommended by the Windsor Report. They are also indifferent to the pronouncements purportedly made on their behalf as they are rarely consulted.

The long history of Anglicanism has only been possible because of its capacity to embrace different views on matters of faith, practice and spirituality.

The labels bandied about of conservatives, liberals, moderates are a simplification of a much more complex situation. We wear all these labels depending on the situation.

But whatever label we may wear its okay. It speaks of diversity and the unity in diversity as Anglicans is that we must all learn to live together.

The late Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie, wrote in a foreword to a book, Grow or Die in 1981, that “…no single form of Christian experience, conviction or organisation is going to prevail over others. Conservative and radical, contemplative and activist, pietist and social reformer, all must learn to live together. They may and should see much to criticize in their own and others’ position. The critical faculty must not be lost. Reverence for truth must still be paramount. But all must learn to live together, for in religion, as in all else, the same things do not appeal to everybody”.

It was a wise observation that is still valid now. The learning to live together means discovering mutual respect and understanding for one another in the way we believe and see things. The crisis in the Anglican Communion gives us all an opportunity to rediscover our relationship with God, ourselves, and each other. And this is only possible by cultivating the gift of humility.

A story is told of famous old priest was being introduced to a congregation by the parish priest who waxed more eloquent by the second:

“We are about to hear from a man of such wisdom that even the most learned sit at his feet; of such kindness that even children flock to him for advice; with such a keen understanding of human problems that men and women bare to him their innermost secrets; a man of such…such…at this point, the old priest tugged at the sleeve of the parish priest, whispering, “ And don’t forget my humility”!

“Don’t forget my humility”. We need to organise an , “Anglican Communion on Humility Conference”! Think of humility as an attitude or spirit of how we see people and the world in general. Humility is seeing, knowing and understanding people with reverence, a sense of wonder, respect and appreciation. It is honouring the person and life by not imposing our ways on them. It is this humility that is a missing ingredient in the war of views on sexuality. We seem to have forgotten that in God’s grace there is no space for arrogance, the holier than thou attitude and judgemental spirit. There is however a lot of space for the spirit of humility which inspires us to be open to learning, growth and being enriched by other encounters.

In humility we must maintain the unity of the Church which is non-negotiable. It is a calling for the leadership of the Church to work hard for the maintenance of the unity of the Anglican Communion through the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council and Meeting of the Primates.

The pursuance of this unity should be done graciously. As you are aware the 75th General Convention of ECUSA in Resolution A165 affirmed their commitment to the Windsor process. I agree with the former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold’s remark in his communiqué of 28th September 2006 that such a process calls for patience and rules out actions which would pre-empty their orderly unfolding.

One is reminded of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the King sitting as a judge orders the jury to consider their verdict even before the trial has began. And the Rabbit hastily interrupts, “Not yet, not yet! There is a great deal to come before that!”

Yes, there is a great deal to come from the listening process and so we all need patience the solution will not come today or tomorrow but most likely within the next 20 years or God’s time because God who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, is also here today working for reconciliation in the Anglican Communion as we embrace different views of our faith. Reconciliation is the answer.

Up to now, some strident voices in Africa have threatened the Anglican Communion with schism, insisting that some provinces be expelled from our world-wide fellowship. Yet such voices because of the very diversity and strength of the Anglican churches in Africa, should be playing a reconciling role, in which Africa’s voice is bringing about reconciliation rather than splitting the Communion.

The Anglican provinces in Africa reflect most of the Anglican traditions – Catholic, Evangelical, Liberal and Charismatic. Southern Africa is progressive, Uganda and Kenya more conservative Evangelical, Central Africa, following its UMCA and USPG heritage, traditional Catholic.

Arguing for a middle way from the extremes, which is our situation in Africa, is being true to the Anglican tradition of seeking the via media. For example, in Southern Africa, the Anglican Church has held together despite huge diversities, not just of race, but of ecclesiology and theology, culture, language – and all under the most intensely divisive political system. Whether the issue was economic sanctions, army chaplains in Namibia, or the ordination of women, they stuck together, not unwillingly but joyfully sharing in the family of the Church, the kingdom of God, to which they knew they all belonged.

They have much to teach us. Our energy should go in strenghthening the many things we have in common rather than focusing on matters on which we differ.

The African perspective also recognises that the individual finds his/her identity within the community; and the community is more important than the individual. This insight is helpful at a time of exaggerated emphasis on individualism in the west. Globalisation means that no region or province can act unilaterally – either the US or regions of Africa. The whole Body of Christ is affected by the actions of one part. In a symphony, the various instruments and sections of the orchestra are designed to play together, such that the full melody is heard. This is unity in diversity.

The wonder of God.

In humility we need to see the Mystery and wonder of God’s kingdom. The core mission of the Church is the enlargement of God’s kingdom on earth. A kingdom where everybody has a place at the table of God. Everybody is welcomed and accepted. Everybody is affirmed. So the mission of the Church is to draw our attention to the dimensions of the Kingdom of God which are immense.

In breadth and length it embraces every tribe, every nation, every colour, every language on the face of the earth.
Why do we keep thinking separation? Could it be it’s because we have lost sight of the height and depth of the kingdom which is just as great – the kingdom within, the infinity of God in us, the wonders of union with God in prayer and sacrament and the realm of silence. We think too small in our inner world just as we think too small in the world around us. We are baptised into something larger, all of us. God help us to live into that. God help the leaders of the church to see the full dimensions of the kingdom, the large picture, and deliberately set out to include, to heal, to reconcile a broken church in a broken world.

I strongly believe through initiatives of collaboration encouraging linkages amongst dioceses in the USA, UK, Asia and Africa which are different from each other; and clergy working in a different cultural context from their own; exchange of visits to create the opportunity for a deeper understanding and appreciation of one another; the issues threatening to divide us can be resolved. Understanding breaks down walls and builds love and friendship.
So, as an African I believe that the future of the Communion is good. We have heard some powerfuls voices speaking on our behalf but there is a voice of grace embraced by the majority of Anglican Africans. It is a still small voice that believes in the beauty of diversity without trying to force people to be square or round. You may not have heard it loudly because many of people go about faithfully living out their christian lives prayerfully, patiently, in a spirit of forgiveness, in a spirit of repentance and reconciliation. This is grace. The only way that can help us overcome the problems that bedevil our Communion today. It is this still small voice that in the Communion will prevail. The voice of grace.

What is vital for all of us, is in all humility, to allow the God’s grace to work in us so that we can be able to work out with patience, prayer, faith, repentance and forgiveness our own salvation and that of the Communion. This will require a tremendous amount of hope against hope and I am sure we shall succeed to hold the Communion together.

For as St. Paul says we are not people without hope. For we walk by faith, not by sight. The Anglican Communion is a great treasure to us and we carry this treasure in our earthen vessels to show that the transcendent power belongs to God. It is true that we shall be afflicted in every way in this crisis, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair, excluded by others in the Communion but not forsaken by God, struck down but not destroyed for we shall always carry in our bodies the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies to the world in the imperfection of our human nature.
There is much to be thankful for to God. May our prayer be to paraphrase the late Lord Runcie that “O’ God we lose not the critical faculty. Supremely reverence the truth and all learn to live together in the knowledge that in religion, as in all else, the same things do not appeal to everybody”.

The official text of their resolutions ran to several thousand words, but for the effect they are likely to have on the church’s relations with the rest of the Anglican world, the bishops could just as well have taken a page out of General McAuliffe’s playbook, saved everyone a lot of time, and issued a simple one-word response: “Nuts!”

At last month’s meeting of Anglican primates in Africa, the Episcopal bishops were asked to do three things: participate in the creation of a church-within-a-church for Episcopal conservatives, promise not to consecrate any more actively homosexual bishops, and promise not to conduct any more church blessings of same-sex unions.

If they did not, the African meeting clearly suggested, the Americans would in effect be choosing to “walk apart” from the wider Anglican Communion. It was rightly described as an ultimatum but nevertheless was quite measured—no one asked Gene Robinson (the actively gay bishop of New Hampshire) to step down, and no one required anything of the Episcopal Church’s numerous openly gay priests. Essentially, the Anglican primates told the Episcopal Church that it would be allowed to push the boundaries, but within limits.

Unfortunately, last week the Episcopal Church apparently decided that it will be bound by nothing beyond itself—not Scripture, not tradition, not worldwide Anglican councils, not anything. And it said so with a vehemence that was surprising, even to many of its supporters.

In their statement, the American bishops accused the global Anglican primates of “unprecedented” spiritual unsoundness and solemnly spoke of the Episcopal Church’s “autonomy” and “liberation from colonialism,” which they understood to be threatened by the creeping rule of “a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.” Apparently, they were serious. With no sense of irony, the bishops of an overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and liberal American church actually saw fit to accuse their fellow Anglicans—many of whom are from poor third-world countries—of “colonialism.”

It is all very sad. One cannot read the bishops’ statement without sensing their anger and impatience. And what is worse, one cannot read the statement without sensing that the bishops have decided, for now and for always, to leave the Anglican Communion and cut conservatives out of the church.

The American bishops passed three resolutions. One was relatively uncontroversial, and passed unanimously—a simple invitation to Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, and the Primates’ Standing Committee to meet with delegates from the Episcopal Church about the present crisis. As Katherine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, explained: “There is some belief in this house that other parts of the Communion do not understand us very well.” Many bishops, it seems, are under the impression that the Episcopal Church’s unique polity and theological concerns are not fully grasped by Archbishop Williams and the primates.

That is unlikely. Rowan Williams invited three Episcopal bishops to last month’s primates meeting for the express purpose of allowing the Episcopal Church to explain itself, and Archbishop Williams has indicated many times that he and the primates understand the polity and position of the Episcopal Church quite well (see here and here). One doubts that additional meetings will finally enlighten Williams as to the true wisdom of the Episcopal Church.

A second resolution was much more pointed and potentially much more consequential. In it, the bishops flatly refused to participate in the primates’ proposed “Pastoral Council,” in effect a church-within-a-church for conservatives, which they rejected as “injurious” and incompatible with the polity and canons of the Episcopal Church. The impetus behind the primates’ proposal was to provide a space for conservatives within the Episcopal Church who, for a variety of reasons, have become alienated from church leadership in recent years. It was a temporary, stopgap measure, designed to hold the church together until a more permanent solution could be found. Many had hoped that, by its adoption, the steady flow of parishes splitting off from the Episcopal Church would cease.

Sadly, the bishops’ rejection of the Pastoral Council means that the disorderly and painful fracturing of the Episcopal Church will likely continue apace, since the bishops do not seem willing to provide any sort of acceptable safe space for conservatives. It also means that tension with Rowan Williams and the primates will ratchet up another notch—their proposed Pastoral Council, by which the primates intended to work with the Episcopal Church, will almost certainly now be implemented against the Episcopal leadership’s will. Conservatives who wish to participate in it will have to do so in defiance of national church leadership, and they may be subject to discipline.

The absurdity of this situation—wherein Episcopalians could be disciplined for daring to conform to Anglican “doctrine, discipline, and worship,” just as printed in every single prayer book in every Anglican pew—apparently has not yet occurred to the Episcopal bishops.

Discouraging as all this is, it gets worse. This is the reason the bishops gave for their rejection of the Pastoral Council: “The meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church,” they solemnly intoned, “is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.”

While that may seem opaque to the casual observer, it is actually a bold and sweeping statement that, if acted upon, will lead directly to a final split with Canterbury and destroy the idea of Anglican catholicity within the Episcopal Church.

To make clear the radical nature of the Episcopal bishops’ new claim, the constitution’s preamble is worth quoting: “The Episcopal Church . . . is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”

By stating that the meaning of this sentence is determined solely by General Convention, the Episcopal bishops are doing nothing less than claiming that what it means to be Anglican, what it means to be in communion with Canterbury, what it means to be a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and hold to the historic Christian faith—that all of this is to be decided solely by the democratic vote of clergy and laypeople once every two years in a Marriott hotel convention room, with reference to nothing and nobody. It is breathtaking in its arrogance.

The bishops’ third resolution is a long, churlish, and supercilious explanation of their actions, nominally addressed as a statement to their own American church but really meant as a jab at the rest of the Anglican world. With an assumed innocence that by this time ought to convince no one, the bishops proclaim the “deep longing of their hearts” to remain within the Anglican Communion, while feigning surprise at the notion that their continued defiance of the rest of that communion might somehow be a problem.

Stunningly, rather than admit that the Episcopal Church’s actions may perhaps have had something to do with the crisis that has nearly driven the entire communion off a cliff, the bishops actually point the finger of blame at the primates, who, the bishops allege, in their attempt to set boundaries and work with the Episcopal Church to provide a safe space for conservatives, are in fact encouraging “one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them.”

To their credit, the bishops here show themselves to be not completely out of touch. They do at least recognize that their actions may lead to the withdrawal of Canterbury’s recognition of full Anglican status, which the bishops say they contemplate with “great sorrow.” But no matter what the archbishop of Canterbury or other Anglicans may say, the bishops boldly declare that it will not affect “our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion.” One imagines that Lewis Carroll would be proud.

There is more to be said, and many faithful Episcopalians have eloquently and clearly expressed their sorrow at the bishops’ actions—most notably, the Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner and the bishops of Dallas and the Rio Grande. Rowan Williams, in a terse response issued by his press office, summed the whole thing up with one word: “discouraging.”

Discouraging, indeed. But for what it’s worth, the bishops actually did not go quite so far as to declare their final independence from the Anglican Communion. While they roundly rejected the Pastoral Council, the bishops did not directly rebuff the primates’ requests to refrain from blessing same-sex unions and consecrating actively homosexual bishops. Several general statements in the bishops’ third resolution seem to signal that they will do so at the next bishops’ meeting in September.

But while this outcome may be likely, it is not certain. Some bishops may feel that they have adequately pushed back at the primates by rejecting their Pastoral Council, thus freeing them up to acquiesce in their other two requests. If so, it might win the bishops a seat at the table for next year’s Lambeth Conference, which would give them a say in crafting the all-important Anglican Covenant, in which terms for communion membership will be laid down.

Of course, even with their presence, the conservative Global South’s large majority will almost certainly make for a covenant unacceptable to Episcopalians, who will likely not go along with any covenant that allows other Anglicans to restrict their much-vaunted “autonomy.” Such a covenant would likely be rejected by the Episcopal Church’s next General Convention in 2009, thus finalizing their decision to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.

So, in effect, while the Episcopal bishops may yet decide to do just enough to postpone their expulsion from Anglican councils for the time being, it is difficult to see how, should they remain on the autonomous course they have set, a schism could possibly be avoided. As most rebellious teenagers and philandering spouses eventually learn, autonomy can be fun for a time, but in the end it does not work well as a way of life together in a family. At last month’s primates’ meeting, most Anglicans decided that sacrificing a bit of their autonomy for the good of the family was what it took to live together as a church. Sadly, so far, it looks as if the Episcopal Church has chosen autonomy and individualism over community and fellowship.

Ephraim Radner sadly gave his conclusion: “There is clearly no place left for conservative Christians within the Episcopal Church’s official structures,” he wrote. Last week’s meeting, he continued, “made clear that the alienation between the Episcopal Church’s leadership and the Anglican Communion . . . has become currently unbridgeable.” “It now appears,” concurred Jeffrey Steenson, bishop of the Rio Grande, “that a divorce may be inevitable . . . the opportunity for moving forward together is getting very slim.” Paul Zahl, dean of a prominent conservative Episcopal seminary, went even further: “It is time for all of us to give up,” he said, “and give up unconditionally.”

Not all conservatives have reached the point of giving up. But there is no way to escape from the conclusion that it will not be long before they will have no other choice. The recent actions of the Episcopal bishops have made the prospect of a conservative exodus—possibly numbering in the hundreds of thousands—more likely than ever. Schism, which so many had hoped to avoid, is today closer than it has ever been. And it does not appear that anything will be done to stop it.

Washington, DC--The House of Bishops met for their annual spring retreat in Texas, on March 16­21. It adopted a resolution conveying the mind of the House. Both that statement and the House’s letter to the Episcopal Church reflect a strongly negative disposition towards the February communiqué issued by leaders of Anglican Communion provinces, who are called “primates.”At the same time, the House did not directly address the primates’ call for the Episcopal Church to end both all authorizations of same-sex blessings and all consents to the consecration of bishops in a same-sex relationship. They instead chose to delay discussion until their September meeting, after the Episcopal Church holds church-wide conversations on these issues—just a short period of time before the primates’ September 30 deadline or the House’s response.

IRD Director of Anglican Action Ralph Webb commented,

“The bishops’ March 20 statement strongly suggests that that the Episcopal Church will neither meet the primates’ requests nor change the Episcopal Church’s direction toward what Episcopal progressives call the ‘full inclusion’ of gays and lesbians. When the bishops ‘proclaim [that] … gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church,’ do they mean to imply approval for same-sex blessings?

“Additionally, the House talks about the ‘full and equal participa[tion]’ of not only gays and lesbians, but women. Since women have been ordained as bishops, is the House implying that non-celibate gays and lesbians should be as well?

“The Episcopal Church’s current stance on same-sex blessings—that official rites cannot be developed but blessings at the local level can be acceptable pastoral measures if they are permissible in the diocese—not only runs against the teaching of the Anglican Communion, but strikes a blow at the institution of marriage. Any heterosexual blessings outside of the institution of marriage have the same effect, as does the consecration of any bishop or other member of the clergy living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

“Some progressive Episcopalians also are calling for, and some have committed themselves to, a radical ‘fast’ from all marriages until gays and lesbians can also be married. So while the Episcopal Church’s rite for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony—in which marriage is called a ‘bond and covenant [between a man and a woman that] was established by God in creation’—has not changed, some members of the laity and clergy are determined to modify it.

“Which way will the Episcopal Church go? The bishops ended their statement by saying that they ‘now determinedly turn’ toward the Episcopal Church’s mission. From all indications, it looks like a turn away from interdependence within the Anglican Communion, and a turn toward autonomy. Such a turn would allow the Episcopal Church to fulfill its increasingly progressive understanding of both the church’s social witness and the gospel—and open the door for eventually changing its definition of Holy Matrimony.”

www.ird-renew.org

As for reality: There is clearly no real place left for conservative Christians within TEC’s official structures. It is obvious to me that, not only are the vast majority of the denomination’s leaders personally hostile to conservative commitments, but they have reached a point where they are quite open and brazen in their exclusion of conservative presence and influence within the councils of TEC. It is increasingly less likely that appointments of conservatives are made to diocesan, provincial, and national committees (the only way, for a long time now, that such a presence has even been possible); and it is certainly no longer likely that conservatives will be voted, by diocesan or national conventions, onto decision-making councils. Most of our seminaries apply, openly or surreptitiously, the gay-test (and probably do so in both directions, depending on the school). God forbid one should actually have a paper trail that marks one’s views. When conservatives are appointed to Communion committees and councils, they are subjected from within TEC to howls of protest and to negative campaigns,
engaged in not simply by concerned individuals, but by bishops and diocesan representatives.

The recent House of Bishops meeting made clear that the alienation between TEC’s leadership and the Anglican Communion as a whole, at least as represented by its Instruments of Communion, has become currently
unbridgeable. The bishops of TEC are convinced that their policies of gay inclusion are non-negotiable, and even the Presiding Bishop has made clear that there is “no going back” on actions and commitments made on this score.
The clarity of the bishops’ and Executive Council’s and General Convention’s statements around this subject give the lie to any claim that TEC’s leadership is interested in “listening”, let alone learning from the rest of the Communion, or that they perceive their commitments even to be a part of some “reception” process of testing. They have made their decision regarding the absolute imperative of the Gospel on this score (as they see it), and no
amount of conferences and dialogues on biblical “hermeneutics” and “cultural perspectives” will budge them from their perceived duty. Those within the church who disagree may be granted some measure of space to live out their
ministries (although who knows?); but it has now been made very clear that they have no standing to oppose, for their views have been judged illegitimate. There is no place to go, in their view, but either towards an embrace of their now settled convictions, or away to the fading margins of their domain.

How should the Communion’s councils deal with this now defined reality? Here we may see where hope is leading us. In general, the Communion should simply allow TEC to go its own way for the present, and withdraw indefinitely its invitations to participate in general councils, such as Lambeth, the ACC, and the Primates’ Meeting. This was Katherine Grieb’s suggestion recently made to the House of Bishops, though her proposed limited time-frame should
be left open-ended. Perhaps in 5 or 10 or 25 years, there will be movements that will change this drifting and now deliberate walking apart; but certainly they will not come about through a process of engaged dialogue. I think that the participation of any American in these councils and structures ­ whether bishop, clergyperson, or layperson ­ should be left undetermined at present. If individual invitations or petitions are tendered with respect to the Communion, let them be dealt with on an individual and ad hoc basis. TEC and its membership, as represented by its House of Bishops, Executive Council, and General Convention, have made it clear that they are committed to their own life, teaching, and discipline and on their own terms. This can and should be respected. The Communion should move on.

What then will happen to conservative Christians in TEC? There are several potential paths:

a. they can continue to gather, worship, and witness as they have, and with all the integrity they can muster, although with the clear sense that they have no directional place and probably future in this church. It is possible
that, as leaders and congregations, they will simply “die out” in the coming years. For clergy who are near retirement, this may prove a peaceable option. For dioceses as a whole, there is a possible future of stability and
fruitful ministry, perhaps even growth. There are real doubts about the ability to maintain appropriate episcopal leadership in such dioceses, however, in the light of the embarrassing fiasco of South Carolina’s failed
consents, and simply the reality of larger social and ecclesial pressures working against maintaining coherent theological focus over the long haul.

b. they can organize, unilaterally as it were, a version of some “pastoral scheme” with a group of TEC bishops willing to step forward as a group. In effect, this would end up being a kind of alternative or parallel Anglican
Church, although without yet a desired formal schism or separation. Bishops would still be members of TEC’s House of Bishops, for instance, assuming they were not brought up on presentment charges. Such an alternative church could, in theory, continue for a long time. Just as Grieb suggested that TEC should carry on in a “parallel” way with the Communion, so too this group could constitute a parallel to the TEC. This might or might not involve a
Pastoral Council precisely organized as recommended in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, although minus the input from TEC. But:
i. this would have to involve negotiation with the main representatives of TEC. Are there people of such good will still among us?
ii. and if such negotiation failed, it would involve either civil disobedience or litigation, or both. Are there people willing to face such things?

c. they can leave TEC and their properties (or negotiate buying them from their dioceses), and join some existing group that is not generally engaged in litigation, e.g. the AMiA (who has admirably, if not wholly consistently,
avoided such things by simply leaving property behind and acquiring new buildings and planting new churches), or those individual congregations who have left property and gone under foreign jurisdictions.
i. These groups may or may not seek to join with one another into a common alternative Anglican church, which may or may not be recognized by the larger Communion as a whole. The challenges to this are enormous, especially
beyond the short-term, as existing theological and disciplinary differences among conservatives emerge. The ecclesiological outlooks among several of the existing separated groups are vastly different, and to this point the
differences have been obscured by the sense of struggling with a common adversary.
ii. the Communion as a whole will have a hard time recognizing such an alternative Anglican group “in the place of” TEC, unless the Communion leadership itself coheres more readily around a common vision, such as the
Covenant. Hence, any recognition of a completely new Anglican church in America will probably have to wait several years.

d. they can leave Anglicanism altogether, and enter other Christian denominations and communions. There is anecdotal evidence that this has been a predominant response by conservatives to the present, although hard
evidence is lacking.

Alternatives in themselves are useful only as they mark out parameters for discernment. What then is the best way among these alternatives? There are arguments to be made for and against each option. But let the Gospel guide
our hopes!

In general, I would counsel complete avoidance of litigation ­ in concert with the explicit teaching of the Gospel ­ and instead encourage civil disobedience in cases where Christians choose to oppose the depredations of
TEC leadership. But is this even a witness we are called to make? Anglicanism has its own sorry history of intolerance and injustice within its midst ­ we remember the whole-scale driving out of clergy in and after
the English Civil War by both sides ­ and these kinds of conflicts among self-styled followers of Christ have long-lasting and scandalizing results. Simply leaving, however, is something that grates, though perhaps primarily
against our pride. I recall only several months ago, at the diocesan convention of Colorado, that a diocesan leader (now appointed by the bishop to a Taskforce on our “common life”) publicly confronted me and demanded
that I “and my kind” “leave the church and let [them] get on with ministry”; we were nothing but “dying embers” bringing division and sowing anger within the church. Part of me would like to prove these kinds of affronts simply
wrong. Such a motive, however, would be base. There is no point dying with the church, unless one is ready to struggle for the truth. But there is no point struggling for the truth if the struggle leaves one bitter and hostile, aimed against adversaries instead of praying for them in love. If one is not called to the radiancy of joyful sacrifice, it is better to leave. And hope is radiant and ready.

In the end, however, I would urge our continued hope that the larger Communion ­ and not simply this or that individual leader or group, whose own discernment is often rather limited ­ will offer the kind of encouraging
and supportive direction we seek, indeed that they shall in fact come forward with a Pastoral Council capable of meeting the needs of Anglican witness within the United States such as the Communiqué recommended. This
would require the kind of corporate vision and courage (not Don Quixote individualism) on the part of “Camp Allen Principled” bishops that is necessary for them to step forward, offer their own readiness to work with
such a Council, and suffer the consequences of their witness and leadership. We are now in the fullness of time for such a demonstration of hope! And we shall all need to hold steady in seeking this direction and support, and
come together with a common sense of its need and usefulness.

I was struck, at the recent House of Bishops’ meeting, with the open abuse, often personally directed, thrown at the Primates by many of our bishops. Turning to them, it appears, means turning away from the majority of the TEC’s leadership. Some will ask, of urse, “is this not a form of giving up?”. But if we do not do this, if we do not continue to hope in the larger Church, we are all being thrown back on individual conscience ­ a noble, but
weak reed indeed that, on its own, can never save us. And it is far too easy to confuse our conscience with the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is the following of Him and Him alone ­ not by ourselves alone, but as the full Body of Christ! — that we seek to accomplish. May this Savior ­ who is “our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1) — come to our aid!

­The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is rector of Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, and a fellow of the Anglican Communion Institute. His Ph.D. is in Theology.

They stated clearly that women are ordained by God for full membership and leadership in the life of God's Church.

They stated unequivocally that lesbian and gay men are also so ordained.

And they reiterated the deeply held tenet that all God's people, including lay people, should have a voice in how the Church is run - that a few far-away Primates should not control local congregational practice.

The bishops have acted with great love for the Church and with a greater love for the justice God requires of all of us. They have reiterated their desire to remain in the larger Anglican Communion, but not at the expense of their lesbian and gay sisters and brothers in Christ. They have not abandoned women as sacrifices on the altar of an idol called the unity of the Communion. They have not given up their democratic principles in order to keep a false peace.

The bishops have responded to arrogance and spiritual violence with a reasoned and loving statement of belief that is no less radical because it is also gentle. In doing so, they have reflected the Christ they serve and have given great hope to us all - hope that the Church can stand strongly for what is right and model patience and community at the same time. I recommend their statement to you.

As Human Rights Campaign Religion Council member Rev. Susan Russell of Integrity has written, "It is long past time to abandon the fiction that the LGBT faithful demand the exclusion of the theological minority in the Episcopal Church who consider our lives, relationships and vocations unacceptable in the eyes of God. It is not and has never been true that the LGBT leadership in this church have ever made the criteria for our inclusion being agreed with."

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is also a member of the HRC Religion Council. In his pastoral letter to New Hampshire Episcopalians following the passage of the resolutions by the House of Bishops on March 20, he wrote, "We will NOT let these issues distract us from God's mission - to preach Good News to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted, to release those in captivity, to bring sight to the blind, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. May God bless us richly in that ministry."

It has often broken my heart on Bishop Robinson's behalf to see news articles that attribute possible schism in the church to his election as bishop, as if it were somehow his fault or the fault of LGBT Episcopalians. No one loves the Church or its Christ more than Gene Robinson. It is clear now that his faithfulness and Susan Russell's community-oriented leadership and ministry have borne great fruit as the House of Bishops has moved to make clear that if schism happens it will be because those against full inclusion divided the House of God. Susan, Gene and the House of Bishops continue to invite dialog in the spirit of what is best for the whole Anglican Communion without retreating from God's incessant call to justice for everyone. If you know anything about the Communion's devotion to conversation and consensus, you know it's downright Anglican of 'em.

The bishops were to hold a 1:30 p.m. PDT news conference today to explain Tuesday's decision to refuse a demand by Anglican leaders that they provide a special vicar for orthodox congregations and dioceses that oppose the Episcopal Church's positions on issues of homosexuality and biblical teaching. The Episcopal Church is the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the world's third-largest Christian denomination with 77 million members.

The bishops, who have been meeting privately in a retreat near Houston this week, also requested an urgent meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion.

In February, Anglican leaders, meeting in Tanzania, gave the Episcopal Church until Sept. 30 to state explicitly that it would bar official blessings for same-sex couples and stop consecrating gay bishops. The leaders, known as primates, also called for the creation of a special vicar and council to oversee a number of conservative American dioceses that have rebelled against the U.S. church's relatively liberal views on homosexuality and biblical teachings.

But the Episcopal bishops released a statement late Tuesday saying that establishment of the outside council would be "injurious" to the church and urging its executive council to refuse it. They called the plan "spiritually unsound" and said it could lead to permanent division of the U.S. church.

The bishops emphasized their hope that the Episcopal Church could remain part of the wider communion. But in one of three strongly worded resolutions, they also outlined how the church's efforts to meet the Anglican leaders' demands had been futile so far.

The U.S. church "welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth," the bishops said. "If that means that others reject us as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision."

Gaps have been growing among liberal and traditional church members in the United States and abroad for years, but reached a breaking point in 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Today, reaction to news of the bishops' decisions was swift, from Episcopalians on all sides of the issues.

The Rev. Canon David Anderson, president of the Atlanta-based American Anglican Council, which has helped dissident congregations leave the Episcopal Church, said he was surprised and disappointed by the bishops' action.

"I was very surprised that in their first meeting after Tanzania that they would start out by alienating the primates and the archbishop of Canterbury and basically giving them a stiff arm," Anderson said. "Strategically, I think it was most unwise on their parts."

Bloggers on a host of church-related websites offered a variety of views. Liberals applauded the bishops, with many saying they were relieved and pleasantly surprised by the tone of the resolutions. Conservatives expressed concern for the future of the U.S. church and said they worried about its ability to remain a member of the wider communion.

In a letter to New Hampshire church members, meanwhile, Robinson said the bishops' meeting, in which he is participating, had been calm and peaceful.

In the letter sent today, he also said the majority of bishops, both progressive and conservative, saw the primates' demand for a special vicar as "an unfair, illegal and wholly unprecedented assault" on the governance and "internal integrity of the Episcopal Church."

rebecca.trounson.latimes.com

The bishops, meeting privately at a retreat center outside Houston, said they were aware that the stand they were taking could lead to the exclusion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, an international confederation of churches tied to the Church of England.

They said they had a “deep longing” to remain part of the Communion, but were unwilling to compromise the Episcopal Church’s autonomy and its commitment to full equality for all people, including gay men and lesbians.

“If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision,” the bishops said in a statement released late Tuesday night. The bishops’ recommendations will be taken up next by the church’s executive council, which is expected to generally agree.

The bishops also called for an urgent “face to face” meeting in the United States with the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, as well as a committee of the church’s primates, who head the international provinces. The primates, at their meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, last month, issued the ultimatum to the Episcopal Church, and imposed a deadline for a response of Sept. 30.

The primates had also asked the Episcopal Church to pledge not to consecrate partnered gay bishops, and to stop authorizing blessings of same-sex couples. The bishops, while not addressing those demands for a moratorium directly, reiterated their commitment to the full inclusion of “all God’s people,” including gay men and lesbians, in church life.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said the bishops would spend the summer consulting with church members to develop a more complete response to the primates by September.

She said that she had previously asked the archbishop of Canterbury to visit the United States and been told that his calendar was full, but that she would ask him again.

“There is some belief in this house that other parts of the Communion do not understand us very well,” she said at a news conference after the bishops’ meeting.

The archbishop of Canterbury issued a two-sentence response on Wednesday, saying that the bishops’ statement was “discouraging and indicates the need for further discussion and clarification.” He added, “No one is underestimating the challenges ahead.”

What really agitated the American bishops was the primates’ insistence that the Episcopal Church accept a parallel authority structure composed of a “primatial vicar” and a five-member “pastoral council,” a majority of whose members would have been appointed by the primates. Bishops said they had a sense of urgency because names of potential pastoral council members were already being proposed.

Several bishops at the meeting said there was an overwhelming aversion to this plan, shared even by some of the theologically conservative bishops. The Episcopal Church defines itself, in part, by its democratic approach to decision-making, in which the bishops share power with the clergy and the laity. Many bishops feared that this new arrangement would grant too much power to foreign primates, many of whom have a more authoritarian approach to church leadership.

Bishop John Chane of Washington, D.C., said in an interview, “It was very clear that the majority of bishops, wherever they were on the theological spectrum, agreed that this scheme doesn’t match with who we are as the Episcopal Church.”

In a strongly worded assertion of autonomy, the bishops said in their statement that any attempt to impose this scheme “violates our founding principles as the Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism.” The bishops included a reminder that the Episcopal Church long ago declared itself independent from the Church of England.

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

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

Reaction in the church was complex. Some liberal Episcopalians applauded the bishops for standing up to the primates.

“It’s a good day to be an Episcopalian,” said the Rev. Terry Martin of Holy Spirit Church, Tuckerton, N.J., who writes a liberal blog that is called fatherjakestopstheworld.

“Many priests have been writing or talking to their bishops, and it felt like the bishops heard the church. This is what many of us have been saying, that if we give the primates this power, they’re going to keep it forever.”

Response from conservatives ran the gamut from anger, to confusion, to relief that finally now the Episcopal Church would be ejected from the Communion. Reached by phone as he was leaving the bishops’ meeting, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who leads a network of conservatives who have been asking for alternative structural oversight, said only: “I’m really thinking through what all this means.”

In a wide ranging speech the Archbishop suggested the government had given in to “the emergence of a new kind of secular dogmatism, which seeks to limit the proper sphere of religion to the internal activities of religious organisations”.

Quoting William Wilberforce, the Archbishop said that he feared:

“the time is fast approaching when Christianity will be openly disavowed, in language as in fact it is already supposed to have disappeared from the conduct of men: when to believe will be deemed the indication of a feeble mind and contracted understanding.”

The Archbishop also suggested that the legislation created a new category of people of faith against whom it would now be legal to discriminate: “through the most laudable aims of removing discrimination against those who rightly deserve protection, the Government will in effect enshrine in legislation a new sub-category of those whom it will be legal to discriminate against.

“Rather than levelling the playing field for those who suffer discrimination, an aim we fully support, this legislation effects a rearrangement of discriminatory attitudes and bias, so as to overcompensate and to skew the field the other way.”

In his speech the Archbishop also argued that the legislation over-reached the proper role of Government in interfering in the content of an individual’s religious belief: “it now seems to me that a legal sausage machine is being created by these regulations, requiring many of us to go through it and come out at the other end, sanitized, and with our consciences surgically removed. The freedom of a good and magnanimous conscience and the voluntary association for the common good cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning.”

Dr. Sentamu also questioned the why the Government had not followed other European Countries, in adopting the legislation in acknowledging the rights of people of faith, whilst the British government had chosen not to: “the Employment Equality (Religion and Beliefs) Regulations (2003) do in fact provide an opt-out in relation to religious beliefs, and a similar opt-out was granted in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations issued in 2003. In each of these cases it was recognised that religious organisations, as well as their individual members, were entitled to protection for their individual and collective conscience, recognising that a civilized society should make room for dissenters. Why, in the present regulations, has a similar opt-out not been granted ?”

ENDS

Full text of speech follows

My Lords,

The German poet, Goethe wrote: “What you have inherited from your forefathers you must first win for yourself if you are to possess it.”

My Lords, I fear that we are in danger of losing the formative Christian inheritance and foundation of this great nation; a foundation upon which our laws, society and culture have been built, but which is in danger of being undermined.

I, like William Wilberforce, fear that “The time is fast approaching when Christianity will be openly disavowed, in language as in fact it is already supposed to have disappeared from the conduct of men: when to believe will be deemed the indication of a feeble mind and contracted understanding.”

In the legislation before us, the government is venturing down an unconsidered path through the establishment of a new hierarchy of rights. Through the most laudable aims of removing discrimination against those who rightly deserve protection, the Government will in effect enshrine in legislation a new sub-category of those whom it will be legal to discriminate against. Rather than levelling the playing field for those who suffer discrimination, an aim we fully support, this legislation effects a rearrangement of discriminatory attitudes and bias, so as to overcompensate and to skew the field the other way.

In my maiden speech in this House, I expressed the fear that we ran the danger of spinning a legal spider’s web from which institutions, groups of civil society and members of local communities stood little chance of escaping. It now seems to me that a legal sausage machine is being created by these regulations, requiring many of us to go through it and come out at the other end, sanitized, and with our consciences surgically removed. The freedom of a good and magnanimous conscience and the voluntary association for the common good cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning.

I have previously referred, in this House, to Bracton’s point that ‘the king or queen must not be under man but under God and the law, for the law makes the king’. The civil freedom we enjoy in Britain stems from his words, which have regulated all our public servants. That principle meant that it was no longer the case that ‘What pleases the king has the force of law’. However, it seems increasingly that we are in danger of reaching a situation where ‘what pleases the government has the force of law.’

The government has proposed to carry out a Discrimination Law Review in relation to previous Equality Regulations. It seems to me that these Regulations, like the Northern Ireland Regulations, have anticipated the outcome of this Review.

As your Lordships know, the sexual orientation regulations arose from a European directive calling for a framework of equal treatment in employment and occupation, and outlawing discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The directive also states that the EU “respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious organisations.”

This proposed legislation from our government has included the work of adoption agencies, which was not specified in other EU countries, and in doing so has breached a conscience provision already established in law through which, for example, doctors, on the grounds of conscience, may opt not to perform abortions. And the right of a woman to an abortion does not give her the right to choose a particular doctor to carry it out.

The Employment Equality (Religion and Beliefs) Regulations (2003) do in fact provide an opt-out in relation to religious beliefs, and a similar opt-out was granted in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations issued in 2003.

In each of these cases it was recognised that religious organisations, as well as their individual members, were entitled to protection for their individual and collective conscience, recognising that a civilized society should make room for dissenters. Why, in the present regulations, has a similar opt-out not been granted? Shouldn’t we all learn to live mangnanimously with difference and attentively listen with due care to each other ?

Other speakers have made the point that we are seeing the emergence of a new kind of secular dogmatism, which seeks to limit the proper sphere of religion to the internal activities of religious organisations.

We must remember that Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects not only the holding of religious beliefs, but also the ‘manifestation’ of those beliefs – “in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” But we must be clear that ‘practice and observance’ does not mean simply the narrow context of corporate worship.

As Lord Nicholls noted, in the House of Lords recent decision in R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson, the tenets of a religion may affect the entirety of a believer’s way of life”; that there were perceived obligations to act in a certain way arising from that belief, and that doing so was itself a manifestation of that belief in practice.

Lord Walker, in the same case, said that “the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or respectful of the law … In matters of human rights the court should not show liberal tolerance only to tolerant liberals”

We must keep in mind the epigram of Montesquieu: that “if mankind was of one mind, and only one man was of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified to silence him than he, if he had the power, to silence mankind.”

But how then are we to approach the question of conflicting human rights? Professor Raphael Loewein his essay, Imitatio and Ethics in Judaism and Christianity, that “The whole concept of human rights is one that is alien to rabbinic jurisprudence… all humankind are the reciprocal beneficiaries of the duties which each individual owes to God. It is mercy, loving kindness and reciprocal solidarity which binds together, at the level of both individual and group, superior and inferior, advantaged to disadvantaged, man to God, and God to man. It prevents either self-discipline or social responsibility from being ignored. It is walking in all God’s ways. Deeds of mutual charity. It is the cultivation of submissiveness to the divine will, and praying, ‘Subdue thou our self-assertive drive, to enslave itself to thee’. For the Torah is a golfing-umbrella, not an infinitely extensible bus shelter

This freshness of thought may help us to get out of the quagmire of the Human Rights debate. These are the core values of true citizenship. Values which were the building blocks that gave nationhood to this nation through the medicine of the Gospel. “Reinventing the wheel isn’t the problem; it’s reinventing the flat tyre that is the killer.”

Will the, noble baroness the Minister give us some assurance on how Regulation 7 will be handled if it proves problematic in relation to the school curriculum and collective worship? Secondly, I see drafting difficulties in the otherwise helpful Regulation 14 in relation to religious organisations. How does the Minister intend to iron out these drafting difficulties?

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that these Regulations should be sent back to the drafting board to enable the government to carry out the necessary balancing of competing rights as found in the 2003 regulations. For this reason I will be voting with those who are Not Content.

Arun Arora

Communications Adviser to the Archbishop of York

Bishopthorpe Palace

York

YO23 2GE

T: 01904 707021

M:07738 354491

W:www.archbishopofyork.net

These people, purporting to act in the name of the Church, are as evil as those who would give whiskey to alcoholics. What 815 2nd Ave. (the national church's headquarters in New York City) is urging is death on a grand scale, and calling it care and support of their victims, without any regard for what they are doing. Don't ever say that TEC cares for or loves its homosexual members.

"Second, the action is also based on a blindness to history. How dare they say that TEC is totally autonomous, and that TEC is not answerable in either liturgy or canon to others in the Anglican Communion. Do they not know how PECUSA came into existence? When an American Book of Common Prayer was first proposed in 1785, it was submitted to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for approval. The Archbishops found it unacceptable, and the Americans were told to make a number of changes.

Likewise, in proposed Constitution and Canons, the process for electing Bishops was unacceptable. So, in 1789, when General Convention met, it approved a BCP acceptable to the Archbishops, and a canonical process of electing Bishops that conformed to the demands of the Archbishops. There was absolutely NO claim of autonomy and the right to do as Americans pleased. But now, TEC has become an imperial force, answerable to no one.

"TEC is no longer a Catholic body. It is no longer even a Christian one. It is simply an embodiment of a corrupt, historically inaccurate, spirit of this age. And if the Anglican Communion does not see TEC for what it really is, even that Communion will be on its way to be a miserable footnote in Christian history."

Although we are unable to accept the proposed Pastoral Scheme, we declare our passionate desire to remain in full constituent membership in both the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.

We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the primates' Standing Committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the earliest possible opportunity.

We invite the Archbishop and members of the primates' Standing Committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.

Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas

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

Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.

Adopted March 20, 2007
The House of Bishops
The Episcopal Church
Spring Meeting 2007
Camp Allen Conference Center
Navasota, Texas

We have met together for prayer, reflection, conversation, and listening during these days and have had the Communiqué much on our minds and hearts, just as we know many in our Church and in other parts of the world have had us on their minds and hearts as we have taken counsel together. We are grateful for the prayers that have surrounded us.

We affirm once again the deep longing of our hearts for The Episcopal Church to continue as a part of the Anglican Communion. We have gone so far as to articulate our self-understanding and unceasing desire for relationships with other Anglicans by memorializing the principle in the Preamble of our Constitution. What is important to us is that The Episcopal Church is a constituent member of a family of Churches, all of whom share a common mother in the Church of England. That membership gives us the great privilege and unique opportunity of sharing in the family's work of alleviating human suffering in all parts of the world. For those of us who are members of The Episcopal Church, we are aware as never before that our Anglican Communion partners are vital to our very integrity as Christians and our wholeness. The witness of their faith, their generosity, their bravery, and their devotion teach us essential elements of gospel-based living that contribute to our conversion.

We would therefore meet any decision to exclude us from gatherings of all Anglican Churches with great sorrow, but our commitment to our membership in the Anglican Communion as a way to participate in the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God's creation would remain constant. We have no intention of choosing to withdraw from our commitments, our relationships, or our own recognition of our full communion with the See of Canterbury or any of the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world.

Since our General Convention of 2003, we have responded in good faith to the requests we have received from our Anglican partners. We accepted the invitation of the Lambeth Commission to send individuals characteristic of the theological breadth of our Church to meet with it. We happily did so. Our Executive Council voluntarily acceded to the request of the primates for our delegates not to attend the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. We took our place as listeners rather than participants as an expression of our love and respect for the sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in the Communion even when we believed we had been misunderstood. We accepted the invitation of the primates to explain ourselves in a presentation to the same meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. We did so with joy.

At the meeting of our House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Texas in March, 2004 we adopted a proposal called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight as a means for meeting the pastoral needs of those within our Church who disagreed with actions of the General Convention. Our plan received a favorable response in the Windsor Report. It was not accepted by the primates. At our meeting in March 2005, we adopted a Covenant Statement as an interim response to the Windsor Report in an attempt to assure the rest of the Communion that we were taking them seriously and, at some significant cost, refused to consecrate any additional bishops whatsoever as a way that we could be true to our own convictions without running the risk of consecrating some that would offend our brothers and sisters. Our response was not accepted by the primates. Our General Convention in 2006 struggled mightily and at great cost to many, not the least of whom are our gay and lesbian members, to respond favorably to the requests made of us in the Windsor Report and the primates' Dromantine Communiqué of 2005. We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships. Still, our efforts were not accepted by the primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.

Other Anglican bishops, in