Anglicans United & Latimer Press

"I decided it was best for me to walk on," he said Friday.

Taylor's resignation came after more than a year of turmoil at the cathedral and after an outside evaluator issued a report outlining problems with church leadership — both on the part of the dean and the vestry.

Taylor preached his last sermon at the church on Palm Sunday, and his resignation was effective Wednesday. He will receive a $313,333 settlement package, $20,000 of which will come from the Olympia Diocese, which covers Western Washington.

Taylor made front-page headlines when he was elected in 1999, making him the first openly gay man to become dean — or head pastor — of an Episcopal cathedral. He has spoken out on behalf of gay rights.

In his years in Seattle, Taylor also became known for community outreach and interfaith efforts, and for tackling social-justice issues, including homelessness. He was the first chairman of the Committee to End Homelessness in King County, and St. Mark's has hosted Tent City encampments many times.

He also brought in major gifts and grants for the cathedral.

But the congregation at the prominent Seattle institution has been in tumult since shortly before Holy Week last year, when two priests and an administrator were laid off because of a budget shortfall.

Parishioners expressed shock over the suddenness of the layoffs. Some became angry when they found out the dean was getting a sizable raise to nearly $220,000, including salary and benefits. And many accused cathedral leaders of not being transparent about finances. Pay equity among cathedral staff members also became an issue.
Church leaders have since moved to adjust pay among cathedral staff members and posted many financial documents online. The cathedral finished last year with a surplus.

But continuing leadership and management issues resulted in the vestry asking for an outside mediator, and a bishop currently living in New York state was called in. Bishop Herbert Donovan, who talked with about 100 people, including current and former church members, leaders, staff members and clergy, issued a report, which the church released on its Web site (www.saintmarks.org) Friday, along with Taylor's resignation letter and other documents.

Donovan's report says the lack of "a genuine trust relationship between the dean and many of the vestry, staff and others in the congregation is an issue that must be addressed immediately."

The report says the vestry "needs to take a hard look at itself, and do what it can to address concerns such as staff morale" and needs to take responsibility for its actions and attitudes. Donovan recommended the vestry work with a consultant.

The report also says Taylor's "inability to take responsibility appeared to be one of the basic barriers to moving forward."

Donovan recommended the dean take at least six months away from Seattle and undergo professional counseling so he could address how to build "effective trust relationships" with the staff and vestry.

The report also said the dean needed to address management skills or a lack thereof, and that 22 staff members had left during his tenure.

The vestry accepted Donovan's recommendations, but Taylor strongly disagreed with aspects of them and "was not prepared to support a solution based on Bishop Donovan's recommendations," according to a letter from the vestry.

The documents released by church leaders did not address the issue of choosing a successor to Taylor. Both current and former senior wardens of the vestry, and several other vestry members, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Taylor said he has taken responsibility a number of times for what's gone on in the cathedral and that the report includes important omissions, such as a plan he developed late last year for leadership development.

He said Donovan's recommendation that he receive counseling could leave the impression that he had engaged in some form of misconduct when there was none.

In particular, he said, he found jarring the recommendation that he take time away from Seattle, likening it to "being sent into exile." The issue was personal for him, he said, "as one who has experienced exile from my home country."

Taylor, who grew up in South Africa, left in 1980 with the help of Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, after being faced with mandatory service in the military, whose racist mission he said he could not support.

He said he's proud of what he has accomplished at St. Mark's, including working with others to acquire a nearby building, building trust with donors and emphasizing the cathedral's place in the community.

Taylor has "helped Saint Mark's reach its potential as a cathedral in the Greater Seattle community and as a crossroads for other faiths," said Susan Lewis, senior warden on the vestry, in a letter to the congregation.
Parishioner Jane Stonecipher, in a written statement sent to the media, said she appreciated Taylor's ability to make spirituality come to life and to link it to the real world. "Our family was deeply saddened to hear of Robert Taylor's resignation," she said.

But for parishioner Nan Nalder, the whole year has been "very pain-filled." She said she had mixed feelings about Taylor's resignation.

"I feel a need to honor him for his service," she said, "but he let us down" when the layoffs occurred and when he cut the cathedral's visual-arts program, which Nalder was heavily involved in.

Taylor said he and his partner, business owner Jerry Smith, plan to remain in Seattle. He doesn't know what he'll do next. "We'll see what unfolds," he said.

Bishop Greg Rickel, head of the Olympia Diocese, praised Taylor's accomplishments, saying in a letter that Taylor's "resignation is particularly difficult when one considers the tremendous spiritual and capital growth during his tenure. ... "

"This has been a long process, longer than anyone had hoped," Rickel said. "In the days ahead there will be much work for this community to do."

Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

It installed Jerry A. Lamb, retired bishop of Northern California, to replace Bishop John-David Schofield, who in December led the Diocese of San Joaquin to leave the ECUSA and come under the authority of the Anglican Communion in South America. The split was sparked by the 2003 ordination of a gay bishop and over the interpretation of Scripture. The Anglican Communion is the worldwide body; the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the church.

The ECUSA ousted Schofield earlier this month; he claims it has no authority over him because he is now part of the Province of the Southern Cone. Both sides are claiming the property of the diocese. The dispute undoubtedly will involve the input of Archbishop Rowan Williams in Lambeth, England, headquarters of the denomination, and possible lawsuits. In the meantime, the conflict continues.

"Healing is possible, and there is work to be done," Jefferts Schori told the Riverbank congregation, which has chosen to stay with ECUSA. "Welcome home."

The crowd of about 100 gave her a standing ovation. Jefferts Schori traveled from New York on Friday for the weekend convention. She planned to visit a congregation in San Andreas on Sunday afternoon.

"It felt very important for me to be here for the reorganization of the Episcopal diocese," she said before the service. "Given that things have been very traumatic for the Episcopalians, it is important for them to know the rest of the church is supporting them."

Of the 47 parishes and missions of the Diocese of San Joaquin, she said 19 showed up in Lodi on Saturday and 18 pledged alliance to the ECUSA, she said, including Christ the King.

It is unclear where the other 28 congregations stand. At least one, St. Paul's in Modesto, will not remain with the ECUSA but also will not follow Schofield to the Southern Cone. Instead, the parish, which owns its property, will align itself with another Anglican organization.

Schism decades in the making

In December, when lay and clergy diocesan representatives voted to leave the ECUSA and come under the authority of the Southern Cone, about six parishes and individuals in other churches made it clear they wanted to remain with the national church. The diocese stretches from Stockton to Bakersfield. For example, most of the 90 members in St. Francis Episcopal Church in Turlock followed Schofield while about 35 members chose to remain Episcopal; they meet in a home under the direction of the Rev. Donna McNiel. A dozen of them attended the service in Riverbank.

"The strength of the Episcopal Church is its inclusiveness," said Leslie Littlefield, 49. "Our strength is our diversity. Even though we might be different from one another, our strength is our openness and our inclusiveness, and I am afraid former Bishop Schofield ruined that."

Schofield couldn't be reached Sunday. The split between the conservative Schofield (and others who hold similar views) and the church was decades in coming. It culminated in 2003, when openly gay priest V. Gene Robinson was ordained as a bishop in New Hampshire. That year, Schofield stopped sending financial support to the national church, which elected Jefferts Schori as its first presiding female bishop in 2006.

Frank Remkiewicz, 58, a member of Christ the King, said the decision to break from Schofield and stay with the Episcopal Church "was a thoughtful decision based on much discernment. Most people voiced an opinion after prayerful thought."

The Rev. Glenn Kanestrom of Christ the King said for him, it came down to being loyal to the doctrine and discipline he took as a priest in the Episcopal Church.

Bishop extends 'calming hand'

Remkiewicz, like other Episcopalians, characterized Saturday's decision for Lamb to lead the diocese as a celebration and a mark of a step toward regrouping.

Jefferts Schori offered what Remkiewicz called "a calming hand" to the separation.

Still left unsettled, however, is who controls the church property in the San Joaquin Diocese. Jefferts Schori said the Episcopal Church's position is that the property falls under the Episcopal Church.

"Our concern is that they be held in the trust for Episcopal Church purposes," she said. "They were given for the mission and the use by Episcopalians and the larger commu- nity."

Bee staff writer Inga Miller can be reached at imiller@modbee.com or 578-2324.

“I expect to see revisions to the canons to deal with situations like the one that you have been living with in San Joaquin for several years,” she said.

The Presiding Bishop spoke at a question-and-answer session at St. Anne’s Church, Stockton, Calif., on March 28 after taking part in a service. The first day of the special convention meeting she has called began with an Order of Worship for the Evening With Prayers for Healing. She read the Litany for Healing.

Today Bishop Jefferts Schori presided at the opening of a special convention at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi to reconstitute an Episcopal diocese with the see city located in Stockton. The convention is intended to undo the actions in December at the diocesan convention led by Bishop John-David Schofield of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Delegates to that convention amended the constitution and canons to allow the central California diocese to leave The Episcopal Church and join the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.

A majority of bishops present at a session of the House of Bishops on March 12 voted to depose Bishop Schofield and the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, retired Bishop Suffragan of Maryland, although questions have been raised about the legality of that vote under church law. The questions were first raised in a Living Church News Service article.

Earlier on March 28, Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina and the diocesan standing committee made public a letter asking Bishop Jefferts Schori not to go ahead with the special convention meeting until the issue of the deposition is resolved.

The Presiding Bishop said the House of Bishops’ vote to depose Bishop Schofield was proper in response to a question from the audience.

“A majority of the House of Bishops voted,” she said. Moreover, she added, any protest of a parliamentary action must be made at the time of the action by someone present at the meeting. “That did not happen.”

Timothy Roberts

Prior to that he served as rector, St. James Episcopal Church, Texarkana for 15 years, Assistant to the Rector at Holy Nativity, Plano for 3 years and at a yoked parishes in Great Bend and Lyons, Kansas for 3 years. Lambert graduated from Nashotah House Theological Seminary in 1975; California State University, San Francisco in 1972 and Oxnard, High School (California) in 1968.

Canon Lambert and Sally, his wife of 32 years, became grandparents for the third time on March 25, with a fourth grandchild expected around April 2. They are the parents of three daughters: twins Claire and Rebecca aged 31 and Megan who is a senior at Sewanee.

The second place went to the Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D. , Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology, and Head of Chapel, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Ambridge, PA. A close third was the Rev. Canon David W. Holland, Rector, Church of the Annunciation, Lewisville, TX.

The final vote count is as follows: total clergy votes: 123 with 63 needed for election. Total lay votes: 203 with 102 needed for election.

the Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph. D. 24 clergy votes and 49 lay votes
the Rev. Canon David W. Holland 29 clergy votes and 33 lay votes
the Rev. Raymond E. Jennison, Jr 0 clergy votes and 1 lay vote
the Rev. Canon Paul E. Lambert 71 clergy votes and 120 lay votes

Cheryl M. Wetzel

We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop.. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed.

Under Canon IV.9.2, the House of Bishops must give its consent to depose a bishop under the "abandonment of communion" canon. ". . . by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote." The Constitution of the Episcopal Church, Article I.2, states in pertinent part that "Each Bishop of this Church having jurisdiction, every Bishop Coadjutor, every Suffragan Bishop, every Assistant Bishop, and every Bishop who by reason of advanced age or bodily infirmity . . . has resigned a jurisdiction, shall have a seat and vote in the House of Bishops."

Due to amendment, Canon IV.9.2, at various times, required consent under these circumstances consisting of " . . . a majority of the House of Bishops," ". .. . a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled . . . to seats in the House of Bishops . . . " and " . . . by a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote." The language of the Canon has consistently required that a majority of all bishops entitled to vote, and not just a majority of those present at a meeting, must give their consent to the deposition of a bishop. Although the language itself is clear, the definition contained in Title IV is even more specific. Canon IV.15 specifically provides that "All the Members shall mean the total number of members of the Body provided for by Constitution or Canon without regard to absences, excused members, abstentions or vacancies."

As we understand the decision by Chancellor Beers, he interprets the language " … the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote" to mean the consent of a majority of those bishops who are present and voting. Yet if the drafters of Canon 9 had wanted to allow for the deposition of a bishop on a vote by a majority of the Bishops at a meeting, as distinguished from a vote by a majority of the whole, they clearly knew how to say that.

The Constitution, Canons and Rules of Order are replete with other instances in which the drafters knew how to articulate something other than " … the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote.". The Constitution Article I 3, dealing with the election of a Presiding Bishop, requires that such a vote be "by a vote . . . of a majority of all Bishops, excluding retired Bishops not present, except that whenever two-thirds of the House of Bishops are present, a majority vote shall suffice . . . " Unlike Canon IV.9, other Canons refer to a vote " . . . by a three-fourths of the members present" or some other "super-majority. In the Rules of Order of the House of Bishops, Rule V speaks of a vote ". . . by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting." That same language appears in Rules XV, XVIII (a) and XXIX. In short, where the drafters meant "those present and voting," they knew how to say so, and did so on a number of occasions.

It is only logical that a greater majority of Bishops should be required for involuntary separation by way of deposition than for voluntary separation by resignation. Canon III.12.8 (d), dealing with resignation by a Bishops, provides that the House of Bishops may accept or refuse a resignation of a Bishop " … by a majority of those present." Under Chancellor Beers' interpretation, it is possible for a smaller number of Bishops to consent to the deposition of a Bishop than the number required to consent to resignation of a Bishop.

Not only is this distinction of critical importance under the present circumstances, but also the question may arise again. Accordingly, and with all due respect to you and Chancellor Beers, we must respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops re-visit your decision and allow for a canonically correct vote on the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield and on any future possible depositions. Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved.

The Diocese of South Carolina demonstrated our commitment to the proper observance of The Episcopal Church Canons with two election conventions and eighteen months of Standing Committee and Bishop confirmations. Because we feel so strongly that the Canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed.

Yours in Christ,

The Very Reverend John B. Burwell
President, Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina

The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
Bishop, Diocese of South Carolina

WHLIII/fnr

cc: David Booth Beers, Esquire

The meeting agenda includes adoption of the 2003 version of the San Joaquin Constitution and Canons certification of delegates and ratification of Bishop Jefferts Schori’s nomination of retired Northern California Bishop Jerry Lamb to be provisional bishop for the newly reconstituted diocese. The diocese seeks a second “canonically correct vote” by the House of Bishops on the depositions of bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox.

“Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved,” the letter added.

“The Diocese of South Carolina demonstrated our commitment to the proper observance of The Episcopal Church Canons with two election conventions and 18 months of Standing Committee and Bishop confirmations. Because we feel so strongly that the canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed.”

Neva Rae Fox, public affairs officer for Episcopal Life Online Media, and other officials from the Episcopal Church Center, were traveling to Lodi when the letter was made public. Ms. Fox said shortly after her arrival on March 28 that she had “not received any notification of any change in plans to proceed with the special convention.”

The Rev. James Snell, president of the San Joaquin Standing Committee, has previously raised the possibility that Bishop Jefferts Schori might be liable for a presentment complaint under the canons which prohibit bishops from entering another bishop’s territory without permission. Under the canons to be considered for adoption by the special convention, the standing committee is the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. The special convention is scheduled to begin in a few hours.

“Bishop Lawrence and the South Carolina Standing Committee have really gone out on a limb in respectfully calling for a second vote on the depositions and for postponement of the special convention,” the Rev. John Burwell, president of the standing committee told a reporter from The Living Church. “I am hoping that other diocesan bishops and standing committees will join me in respectfully calling for the consistent application of our canons.” Fr. Burwell, who also serves as rector of Holy Cross Church, Sullivans Island, also confirmed that the diocese had informed Bishop Jefferts Schori of their intent to make public the letter ahead of time and waited for confirmation that she had received it before doing so.

Steve Waring

However, as is now well-documented--on this blog and elsewhere--the four clerical members of the Standing Committee, and two of the lay members, almost immediately following the December convention, signaled their intention to not follow the majority to the Southern Cone. They did so by consenting to the election of a bishop by a diocese of the Episcopal Church, and transmitting that consent through normal channels. In mid-January, the President of the Standing Committee spoke on the phone with the Presiding Bishop and informed her that a majority of committee’s members did not intend to join in the secession, and wished to continue to operate under the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. A day after this phone conversation, Bishop Schofield, in effect, recognized this reality and effectively "fired" these six individuals, and reconstituted the Standing Committee of the Southern Cone Diocese of San Joaquin from the remaining two lay members. But for reasons at this point known only to her, the Presiding Bishop refused to recognize the loyalty of the six, despite clear knowledge of their intention to follow the canons, and publicly declared her judgment that there were in fact no continuing members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. This was the first of three canonically questionable moves on her part that cast a shadow over the entire project of rebuilding the ministry of TEC in the central valley of California.

The second such canonically questionable (and this is a charitable description) move took place barely two weeks ago at the meeting of the House of Bishops. The question before the house was the canonical deposition of two bishops--Schofield of San Joaquin and Cox, retired Assistant of Oklahoma. In the case of Bishop Cox, the entire process (under the so-called "abandonment of communion" canon, which calls for summary judgment without trial) was botched, as he was never inhibited and the Presiding Bishop held the "indictment" (from the Title IV Review Committee) back when she was canonically required to have presented it to last September’s meeting of the HOB. But in the case of both bishops, the deposition failed on a technicality, though this was not noticed at the time. Within it couple of days, however, outside sources pointed out that the required number of votes to depose needs to be not just a majority of a quorum, but a majority of the "whole number" entitled to vote. As I write, at least one member of the HOB has demanded that this irregularity be investigated, and we can be sure the dust is far from settling.

Now the final ingredient in the Perfect Storm recipe--the one that will act as a catalyst, joining with the others to ignite a cataclysm in the Anglican world. In less than two days’ time, the Presiding Bishop is intending to call to order a special convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the city of Lodi. While it is arguably her duty to facilitate the reconfiguration and reinvigoration of TEC’s ministry in that area, the way she has gone about doing so seems to ignore, if not flout, the very Constitution and Canons of the Church she serves. This is where the canonical cloud over the deposition of Bishop Schofield becomes extremely relevant. Only in the absence of a bishop can the Presiding Bishop step in to a situation, and then only under strictly limited circumstances. But there is plausible doubt whether Bishop Schofield has in fact been properly deposed, and this calls into question any action that the special convention on Saturday will take. Of course, Bishop Schofield has no desire to be the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, and he has in fact submitted his resignation to the Presiding Bishop. The problem is, neither she nor the House of Bishops bothered to accept that resignation! So, do we indeed have a vacancy in the office of Bishop of San Joaquin? Practically, we do. But technically, we do not. And with as much at stake as there is in these times, with the level of trust in our leadership eroding at every turn, this is one occasion when it is imperative to be excruciatingly correct technically, to bend over backwards to avoid even the whiff of an impression of the subversion of due process.

But wait...there’s more! The "unrecognized" Standing Committee--that is, the duly and canonically elected Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin--made it clear to the Presiding Bishop on several occasions that, in the event of Bishop Schofield’s lawful deposition, they stood ready to perform their duty and become the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, cooperating with her office as appropriate under the constitution and canons. As recently as two weeks ago, they expected to shortly be called to act in accordance with the polity of "this Church." But because of the technical glitch, they cannot recognize the See of San Joaquin as vacant, and are therefore unable to lawfully step in.

So what we will have Saturday is a Perfect Storm--an institution going rogue on itself, ignoring its own polity, its own rules . . . just because it can.

Sutton has served parishes in the dioceses of New Jersey and Washington. He has taught homiletics and liturgics at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, and General Theological
Seminary. He has also served as assistant to the bishop in the Diocese of New Jersey. Sutton is a frequent leader of retreats and conferences on prayer, preaching, spirituality and mission. Married to Sonya Subbayya
Sutton, their family includes four children and stepchildren.

More information about Sutton is available here (http://www.ang-md.org/bishop_search/nominees.php#sutton).

"I am both honored and humbled to be elected your bishop in the wonderful Diocese of Maryland. I, Sonya and our family look forward to being among you as fellow travelers in this exciting journey," Sutton said following the
election. "I would like to express my hopes and dreams for our new ministry together in the form of a prayer. We continually give thanks to God, who in Christ makes "a new creation...the old has passed away, behold, all things
have become new.'"

Full story: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_96089_ENG_HTM.htm

The three-judge panel announced March 25 it would rehear the case this summer and it asked several parties, including the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District and several teachers unions, to submit friend-of-the-court briefs. The court's Feb. 28 ruling asserted that "parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children" -- alarming homeschoolers nationwide, despite the fact it was limited to California.

If it stands, the decision could have a dramatic impact on the state's estimated 166,000 homeschool students. Soon after it was issued, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized it and pledged legislation if it wasn't overturned. State Schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell also supports the rights of homeschoolers.

Attorneys affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund were among those who had asked the court to reconsider its ruling.

"Another look at this case will help ensure that the fundamental rights of parents are fully protected," Gary Kreep, who is allied with ADF and also affiliated with the United States Justice Foundation, said in a statement.

Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, called the court's decision to rehear the case a "great first step." His organization plans on submitting friend-of-the-court briefs.

"We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be," Farris said in a statement. "This case remains our top priority."

The Feb. 28 decision was viewed as particularly troublesome by pro-family groups because California's public schools have some of the more liberal laws in the nation regarding teaching about sexuality and homosexuality.

Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote the unanimous ruling in February for the panel.

"California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," Croskey wrote.

California law, the court ruled, requires that children be enrolled and attend a public or private school or be "tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught." Parents who fail to follow the state law could face criminal penalties.

"Because parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling within the provisions of these laws, parents who fail to do so may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program," the court wrote. "Additionally, the parents are subject to being ordered to enroll their children in an appropriate school or education program and provide proof of enrollment to the court, and willful failure to comply with such an order may be punished by a fine for civil contempt."

The court's ruling overturned a lower court decision that had ruled parents do indeed have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.

The case involved an unidentified family who had homeschooled their eight children. One of the children reported physical and emotional abuse by the father, leading to an investigation by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and eventually to the court case. Focus on the Family issued a statement after the Feb. 28 decision saying that the court should have limited the decision to the specific situation but instead "overreached" and applied it to all homeschooling situations.

Compiled by Michael Foust, an assistant editor for Baptist Press.

What he wants is a microphone and an audience -- preferably white, but he'll take what he can get. This audience he proposes to instruct as to the collective iniquity of white America in its dealings with non-white America. That isn't all he wants. He wants utter silence from the audience. No backtalk.
You couldn't characterize a one-sided lecture as "conversation," and yet it's pretty much what we get every time the matter of race intrudes itself into public affairs. The habit was born in the 1960s, when so many of our present, er, moral leaders came to political consciousness. It was never the way of the counter-culture to accept contradiction. America was wrong about almost everything, and if you didn't agree, all that showed was your ignorance; not to mention your racism.
Demagogues like Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are hard to take, but easily a harder job are those enlightened whites (they'll happily identify themselves as such) who see all racial questions as matter for flagellation of the supposedly less enlightened.
Put the ordinary white and the ordinary black together in real, not just pretend, situations -- the workplace, for instance -- and nine times out of ten you find they care about the same things: family, sports, job, animals. God, too. No such occasion automatically produces instant brotherhood. On the other hand, simple tolerance isn't such a bad outcome to cross-racial encounters Can't we all just get along here? Yes. Maybe. Provided we keep the ideologues, the worst of whom are white, not black, from turning all bi- or trans-racial encounters into mass scoldings.
As if! I don't think I've encountered a truly bigoted white in 20 years. On the other hand, the universities and the media -- two overwhelmingly white institutions -- keep the attacks on bigotry flowing liberally, you might say.
I was watching only the other day an independent film (you know, like Al Gore?) on bias in higher education, and, lo, a bearded academic had the gall to inform us that "whiteness" is "an oppressive social category." I think they used to call this condition "institutional racism." You were a racist by mere participation in the life of an institution traditionally dominated by the white folks. See how easy to qualify! You didn't have to wear a bed sheet to earn the stigma once reserved for plantation overseers or Confederate privates.
Alas, the parties making such accusations never make known justify their intellectual premises. Mere assertion does the job. The white man, especially the Southern white man, gets no credit for honorable performance, or, for that mattter, civilized emotion. Witness Duke University and the Great Lacrosse Charade -- the mendacious prosecution of three college students for alleged gang rape on the say-so of a black stripper whose "plight" inspired 88 faculty members, in a newspaper ad, to cry out against the Duke campus's "racism" and "sexism."
It's trendy, in other words, to advertise your own repudiation of white "advantage" by attacking the advantaged whenever the chance presents itself.
So no conversation about race. Not until the great majority of those who learned their politics in the '60s are tucked away six feet under. Maybe not even then, such is the tenacity of their example. White America cast off segregation (and good riddance). It opened doors all over our national home to those previously denied admission. It now looks not unkindly on the presidential candidacy of a man of mixed race. Pretty good work for a bunch of institutional racists, mightn't we want to acknowledge?

All this activity means that the movement to protect marriage is strong and it is growing. It also means that the radical activists are determined to destroy marriage, and are looking to the courts and state legislatures to overturn the will of the people. But the people will not be denied. We are just as determined to fight back because of what's at stake: our children and our families. From collecting signatures for the ballot drive in California, to fighting in Arizona and planning our rally at the Democratic National Convention, our diverse coalition "will be standing up for marriage," said Samuel Rodriguez, Jr., Co-Chairman of AFMF "Many Voices, One Mission" Campaign.

A summary of state legislative action follows:

Arizona: An amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman looks increasingly like it will be on the ballot this November. The House Judiciary Committee passed a version by a 2 to 1 margin in February. It later passed the House Rules Committee and is ready for consideration by the entire House. In the Senate, the Public Safety & Human Services Committee passed the bill in February by a vote of 4-1. It now goes to the Senate Rules Committee.

California: In a closely-watched case, the California Supreme Court heard testimony in early March about the constitutionality of the state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which passed in 2000 by a 61% to 38% margin. The court has until early June to rule on the issue. The case also reveals that the true goal of radical activists has little to do with 'rights' and everything to do with redefining marriage, since California has already taken steps to provide 'equal rights' to domestic partners.

In light of the Supreme Court deliberations and the possibility that the court might rule against marriage, California voters are also working to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot this November. Petitioners must gather enough signatures by April 1st to succeed. Californians for Marriage – a group allied with the AFMF – has as delivered petitions for the cause.

Colorado: Just 16 months after Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, a couple is suing to have the law overturned as unconstitutional. The court heard initial arguments in late February, and a decision is pending.

Florida: Last month, Florida voters easily surpassed the signatures necessary to place a state marriage protection amendment on the November ballot; including a record-breaking 92,000 signatures in just 13 days.

Maryland: The Maryland House of Delegates held a hearing in February on several bills involving the definition of marriage, including a marriage protection amendment. At the same time, radical activists are pushing to have Maryland become the second state in the nation after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage. Fortunately, marriage supporters appear to have won the day by turning back the push to legalize same-sex marriage.

Pennsylvania: The state Senate Judiciary Committee voted in March to send a marriage protection amendment before the entire Senate for consideration. Should the Senate pass the legislation, the bill would next move to the House. For the Pennsylvania constitutional amendment to be ratified, the bill must be approved by the Legislature this year and again in 2009, and then be approved by voters in a statewide referendum in November 2009.

The Alliance for Marriage and Alliance for Marriage Foundation are non-partisan coalitions whose Board of Advisors include Rev. Walter Fauntroy — tthe DC Coordinator for the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. — as well as other civil rights leaders, religious leaders and national legal experts.

© Copyright Alliance for Marriage 2008

The conference leadership, theological resource group, and those bishops who are serving in majority Islamic settings will meet in Jordan June 18-22 for an important consultation prior to the pilgrimage. All members of the Common Cause college of bishops from the U.S. and Canada have been invited to GAFCON. The vision, according to the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, is to inform and inspire the invited leaders “to seek transformation in our own lives and help impact communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

The convening primates have said that their pastoral responsibility requires that they provide an opportunity for their bishops, who would normally have looked to the Lambeth Conference, to meet for prayer, fellowship, and counsel, on matters vital to their Church’s mission and ministry. GAFCON will include bishops who cannot in good conscience accept their invitation to Lambeth, bishops who were not invited to Lambeth because they serve under overseas primates, and bishops who believe it is important to attend both conferences.

The Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, said: “Shared mission clearly must rise from common shared faith. Our pastoral responsibility to the people that we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time, and build a network of co-operation for global mission.”

The Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, has written: “The conference is to discuss the future of mission and relationships within the Churches of the Anglican Communion. Those who wish to retain biblical standards, especially in the area of sexual ethics, want to move on together with the gospel of Christ’s lordship, a gospel which challenges us and changes lives.”

Bishop Robert Duncan, moderator of the Common Cause Partnership, said, “We are coming together because we believe it is time to get on with the mission of the church. Our focus is going to be that mission and how those of us on the same Gospel page can work together to advance it.”

Anglicans face global challenges. There are challenges to the role of the family, threats to world peace, and impediments to the means of economic empowerment for families and communities. Two of the most important challenges to global Anglicanism, according to Canon Dr. Vinay Samuel, director of the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life, are the challenges of secularism and Islam. The liberal response is to accommodate to the ethical challenge of Western culture and meet the challenge of Islam with indifferentism.

The conference will grapple with the crisis of authority and ecclesiology that has occurred as a result of North American actions. We want to ensure that our relationships in the Anglican Communion reflect gospel values. We seek to affirm both biblical orthodoxy and Catholic order, but a Catholic order that will serve the Catholic faith, not the other way around. Were Catholic faith to serve Catholic order, there would never have been a Reformation. Responses have been positive. One senior English cleric spoke for many: “We have to find a way which does not leave us endlessly stuck waiting for decisions which never come and allow us to move on with the gospel.” Another called the decision to hold the conference “momentous”. From East Africa, a senior official has written: “The vision is timely.”

As the principle of calling the conference was being discussed by the leadership team in December, a clear sense emerged that there was only one global venue for Christians seeking to affirm the basis of the apostolic and biblical faith: the Holy Land.

The Lord spoke through Psalms of ascent — for example, in Psalm 122: “I rejoiced with those who said to me ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord.’ Our feet are standing in thy gates, O Jerusalem. That is where the tribes go up to praise the name of the Lord. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

On visiting Jerusalem for the first time to prepare for the pilgrimage, this thought struck me most forcibly: here is the place and the community that was shaped by the Divine Presence and the Divine Word. Through the ministry of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and the preaching of salvation through him by Peter, Paul and the apostles, this community now embraces the world. The Anglican world is coming back to Jerusalem to find its ancestors and its spiritual roots.

This gathering of orthodox Anglican leaders will enable Anglican Churches in all parts of the world to develop their understanding of the gospel by building relationships across the usual dividing lines of humanity, race, culture, gender, and economics. This expresses the true inclusiveness of the gospel — that all who receive the good news of Jesus have a contribution to make to the spiritual health of the whole.

This is one of God’s ways of ensuring that Churches in the West are not overwhelmed by the power of their surrounding culture, because they are in fellowship with and accountable to Christians in other cultures and contexts. “We as Anglican leaders hope to re-commit ourselves to our apostolic call, under the Word, as we examine the emerging outlines of a missionary and post-colonial global Anglicanism for the 21st Century,” Duncan said.

God is clearly at work. This is a time of asking people to reaffirm their Anglican identity by being clear about their commitment to the biblical gospel and the faith of the Church as expressed in its creeds and formularies. We have to be ready to make a clear witness, not to compromise what has been entrusted to us for the health, wholeness, and salvation of men, women, and children.

We must put our hope in God; we must pray for his will to be done; we must be ready to be willing instruments of his purpose; and we must look for him to give the increase.

For more information go to http://www.gafcon.org/

Robinson hasn't been invited to the Lambeth Conference, which brings together bishops from all over the world every 10 years, but plans to be outside, talking to anyone he can reach. His consecration as the church's first openly gay bishop has threatened to split both the Episcopal Church in the United States and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

"One of the things I think I've learned in the last five years is that, as much as I wanted to be known as the good bishop, and not the gay bishop, there's no escaping," Robinson told the Boston Globe. "I would love just to be a simple country bishop but that just doesn't seem to be in the cards."

Robinson has a book coming out next month. In June, he and Mark Andrew, who has been his partner for 20 years, said they plan to commit to each other in a civil union.

After the sudden death of his predecessor, the Rt. Rev. John T. Walker, in 1989, Bishop Haines was elected Bishop of Washington in 1990. During his 10 years as diocesan, he streamlined the organization of the diocesan administrative center and restructured the way diocesan finances were managed. With assistance from diocesan leaders, Bishop Haines created new mission policies for the use of the diocese’s Ruth Gregory Soper Memorial Fund. He also enlarged upon a tradition in the Diocese of Washington of supporting and ordaining women and homosexual persons to the priesthood.

After retirement, Bishop Haines and his wife, Mary, moved to Lancaster, where he served the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, first as interim rector of St. John’s Church, then as priest-in-charge of St. James’, both in Lancaster. For the past three years, Bishop Haines was priest-in-charge of St. Paul’s, Manheim. In retirement, he also continued to assist with confirmations and ordinations in the dioceses of Central Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Bishop Haines is survived by his wife, who has been in residential Alzheimer’s care for several years, as well as six children: Jennifer Haines Tozier of Advance, Pa., Alicia Haines Pearson and Ronald Gregory Haines, both of Tacoma, Wash., Thomas Jeffrey Haines of Kittery Point, Maine, Jonathan Andrew Haines of Portland, Ore., and Peter Joshua Haines of Rockville, Md.; 16 grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. A memorial service will be held at St. James’, Lancaster, on March 27. A memorial service and interment will be held at Washington National Cathedral at a date to be announced.

The controversial visit involving the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC (Oct 2007), without prior consultation with the Primates on its composition, procedure and accountability process, and its un-critical and overly generous assessment of the response of the House of Bishops (TEC) has further weakened the remaining fragile threads of trust in the Communion and severely affected hope for any genuine resolution.
These have caused various deepening negative assessments and cast further doubts on the state, will and ability, of the Communion to continue as a recognizable living and witnessing expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Consequently, initiatives and challenges have emerged which could lead to further fragmentation and disintegration in the Communion, which is already in the nadir of collegial trust and confidence.
It is against this backdrop that we, the Global South Primates' Steering Committee, met to pray, share frankly and converse in collegial accountability. Enabled by the Holy Spirit, we were able to focus in unity on the original spirit, vision and vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion, which had developed and deepened since the fateful event of November 2003.

3. We were greatly encouraged to receive reports of the substantial progress of the three major initiatives undertaken by the Global South at the historic Red Sea Encounter (Oct 2005) and further endorsed at the Global South Primates Gathering at Kigali, Rwanda (Sept 2006). They are the Global South draft for the proposed Anglican Covenant, the Anglican Catechism in Outline and the Economic Empowerment Track. We are very appreciative of all the members and voluntary support personnel involved in the various Task Forces.

4. We see a increasing conviction and confirmation of the prophetic and priestly vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion. As Primates coming from different contexts, we were led into deep conversations and helpful clarifications on the challenges before us (Ps 133; Eph 4:1-6; Phil 2:1-5). We reaffirmed our total and collegial commitment to the solemn vocation of the Global South. We resolved, and urge all in the Global South and other orthodox constituencies of the wider Communion to strengthen our hearts and wills to work together for the fundamental renewal and transformation of the global Anglican Communion.
The Global South remains committed and encourage all Provinces to actively participate in the study and requested feedback on the St Andrew's Draft of the Anglican Covenant, its substance and spirit to be in line with our common classical Anglican heritage of biblical, historical and reformed formularies of faith and ecclesiology. In particular, we strongly urge the presentation of a definitive text to the Provinces by ACC 14th (May 2009) to begin the urgent and timely process of official adoption and ratification for the Communion.

5. Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South. We are looking forward to offer the fruit of the labour on the Anglican Catechism in Outline to the Anglican Communion in June 2008.

6. For Lambeth Conference, we take note of the agenda centering on the significance of the Anglican Way and the Episcopal Office for the Life and Mission of the church within the framework of the Windsor-Anglican Covenant process. We also take note of the reiteration by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Advent Letter (Dec 2007) that 'acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the conference’s agenda that relate to the implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant.'
Nevertheless we deeply regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not consider it appropriate to invite those bishops consecrated by outside Provinces to address pastoral exigencies in USA. The temporal pastoral responses to needs on the ground should not be treated on the same level as the crisis-creating theological and ethical innovation of those involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson. Furthermore, these responses would not have continued if the requirements of the unanimously agreed Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting at Tanzania of TEC had been adequately complied with.

7. The initiative and need for GAFCON critically serves to remind us that the 'torn fabric at the deepest level' of the Anglican Communion is still a living reality. We encourage the GAFCON participants to bear in mind the under-girding and wider framework of the united vocation and mission of the Global South for the life and witness of the wider Anglican Communion. We are encouraged that the primatial leadership of the GAFCON recognizes and supports the significance of the Windsor-Covenant process.
Unless the primary reason for the current crisis and division in the Communion is properly addressed, and the broken and impaired communion restored, the common life of the Communion cannot be expected to continue normally. It will be difficult to effectively fulfill our apostolic vocation, life and witness in and to a world so broken and divided, confused and lost, without the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

8. Finally, we are persuaded, that after GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (July 2008), the primary and urgent task is to move the global Anglican Communion substantially and effectively forward, to be living and witnessing as a worthy and exemplary expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The pastoral and missional needs for focused leadership and development, the deepening of collegial foundation and framework for the transformation and renewal of covenantal Anglicanism will be the focus of the 4th Global South Encounter, which by then should have a broadened representation.

"Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling
and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,
to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord,
be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority,
before all time and now and forever. " Amen. (Jude vv.24-25)

Churches, synagogues, mosques, prayer meetings. They are not just places of religion. They are communities of mutual help, support and practical guidance in matters of daily life. As social scientists well know, they are instrumental to building and maintaining social capital. For new immigrants, as well as racial and ethnic minorities, they serve a particularly special purpose. Often, the immigrant or ethnic church is the one public place where a common language, food and humor particular to one's cultural heritage can be shared. It is also the place that connects us to potential jobs, educational opportunities, health care and housing options if information and access are hard to come by in the larger society. Places of worship are also providers of everyday services. It is through the congregation that we ask for help—to look after our children or our elderly parents when we are in a jam, to get emotional and spiritual guidance and support in times of personal or family crisis. Often, it is the people in the worship hall who help us find our mates, help paint our houses and visit us in hospitals. A house of worship is much more than the pastor.

Like many Korean-Americans in this country, I grew up in an immigrant Korean-American church in New Jersey. As a teenager, I taught Sunday school, led the children's choir, sang duets with my sister at Christmastime, helped wash dishes in the kitchen and more. But in my mid-30s, I left that church and became a member of Trinity in Boston. I had no ax to grind with my pastor, even if his sermons put me to sleep from time to time and his interpretations of the Bible were less than persuasive. Though I never felt I was leaving him behind, I was sorely aware that I was leaving a community of people who had helped rear me from child to adult. This community inspired me to tears when we sang together "Amazing Grace" and "Silent Night" in Korean. And I miss the power of those feelings—"grace," in the Christian tradition, one might say—even as I cherish my adopted congregational family of mostly white Episcopalian Bostonians.
Did Rev. Wright commit a mortal sin? Did he break any laws in preaching what he did? Did he incite his flock to perpetrate racial violence? Did he force his views down the throats of his congregants? If so, the entire congregation, not just parishioner Obama, should take him to task.

What we might remember is that many white congregants of evangelical churches whose pastors had outright lied to them about their extramarital affairs and sexual orientations while exhorting them to live "righteously" did not denounce or condemn their pastors. Many such folks followed the Christian precept to forgive.

There are plenty of preachers in America who preach hate against blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays and lesbians, and the list goes on. There are too many clerics who have embezzled funds from their congregants and have molested children entrusted to them by their flock. If we expect Rev. Wright to be taken to task for his speech, we should do the same for each and every clergy member in America, for his or her speech and actions.

Our faith communities are much more than the pastors, imams and rabbis who stand up and raise their voices in prayer. Individual leaders come and go, but it is the congregational community—black, white, Asian, Latino or multicultural—that stays with us and our families.

Katharine H.S. Moon is a political science professor at Wellesley College and is an associate fellow at Asia Society-New York.

Indeed, given the intrinsic seriousness of the matter - the deposition of a bishop - and the overwrought character of the moment within both TEC and the Anglican Communion and within which the deposition process has unfolded, and the general ecclesiological stakes at play within the Communion at large that are caught up in this moment, it is simply unconscionable that such preparation was not carried through. Trust in the good will and/or good sense of our leadership is no longer just frayed; it has been torn asunder. And the result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of TEC's standing in the public's eye and in the Communion's councils. Although some will take this as vindication of their hostility towards TEC, it can only bring shame to the Christian gospel as a whole, given that the name of Christ is being abused in the process.

Complaints there will be aplenty. What we wish to emphasize at this point, however, is that the present fiasco is the inevitable outcome to a destructive mistake on the part of our leadership. And that mistake is the insistence on dealing with an ecclesial challenge, one bound up with the character of the Christian faith, on the basis of limited disciplinary canons that are incapable of and not designed to address such a major issue. The canons of TEC, and usually of any church, are meant to order the common life of those who are agreed as to the fundamental truths that the church in question exists to serve; such canons cannot act to discern those truths subsequent to their deployment. But the major dispute in question, the one within which charges and depositions are being thrown about, has to do with that which define the canons themselves, not the other way around.

This point is of fundamental importance and bears repeating. The matter at issue is that our canons are being used to conclude that someone has abandoned communion. They are not being used, as they should, to take appropriate actions after a clear determination has been reached that communion has in fact already been abandoned. A use of the canons in this way amounts to a political rather than a legal act and as such serves to undermine the order not only of TEC but of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, by such an act TEC hews perilously close to a describing itself as an idiosyncratic church within a larger Communion Body, making judgments about Communion membership from its own limited perspective and so calling into question its own place within that larger fellowship.

In this case, a central clue as to what is going on was given by Bp. Schofield's March 12 Statement in response to the vote to depose him on the basis of his having "abandoned the Communion of the Church" (Canon IV.9.2): "I have not abandoned the Faith," Schofield stated; "I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not - or should not be - two separate Churches." Bp. Schofield's point is straightforward: if the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is not a "separate church" from TEC, how can he have "abandoned" the "Communion" of TEC's own ecclesial existence? Does in fact TEC "recognize" the Southern Cone as an Anglican Church with which she is in communion? In what sense, then, is "abandonment" taken?

The basic ecclesial issue, then, is one of recognizability. Yet this is just the issue that is at stake in the Anglican Communion's current struggles. Archbishop Rowan Williams himself spoke to it straightforwardly last December in his Advent Letter to the Primates. The Anglican Communion's "unity", he wrote, "depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission." The issue of "recognisability", of course, is more than a matter of Anglican Communion concern; it has become a central feature of ecumenical discernment. And therefore, the fact that the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops as a whole can determine that Bishops Schofield and Cox are worthy of deposition under Canon IV.9.2 would seem to indicate that they believe that both bishops and the Province of the Southern Cone do not share with TEC in the "constitutive elements" of "church" in the fundamental ways that provide "communion".

Some may dispute whether the disciplinary canons for "abandonment of communion" are clearly designed to deal with the larger matter of impaired or broken "communion", that is, some level of non-recognizability. And the question is admittedly confused given that it is bound up with issue of the "worship and discipline" of the Episcopal Church, which itself, in other places like our Prayer Book, is linked to "constitution and canons". Perhaps all that is envisaged is the narrow world of American Episcopalian denominational polity. But it is precisely the fact that there is a dispute at all that would indicate that caution be taken in starkly applying the canon of "abandonment of communion" in the midst of context of fundamental argument. In our minds, at any rate, it seems proper that the language of "communion" ought to be directive of the interpretation of the canon in this case, given its larger meaning, both in the tradition and in the Constitution's Preamble: we are talking about
recognizability among churches, not political legalities.

The issue of communion and the recognizability of churches has already surfaced as a canonical issue in 2000, with regards to the AMiA and those clergy who left TEC to go under the Provinces of Rwanda and (at the time) South-East Asia. Had these clergy "abandoned the Communion of the Church"? There was disagreement at the time, with the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor even then vigorously and sometimes angrily demanding that Title IV.9 be applied, while others (including one of the present writers) argued that, although there was a serious dispute taking place, the churches in question were indeed "one", and that the appropriate process was to issue the departing clergy Letters Dimissory. The disagreement of 8 years ago has not been resolved, we might add, on either side. For it appears that not only do the leaders of TEC not recognize some parts of the Anglican Communion as "in communion", but neither do some of these churches recognize TEC as truly a "church in communion", and for a
variety of reasons, theological and disciplinary. After all, when Letters Dimissory were sent, they were never acknowledged nor formally received. Indeed, if TEC and the Province of the Southern Cone are not in fact "two separate churches", what exactly is going on from either side in this dispute? This is the territory of ecclesiological quicksand.

But given this fact, why would one wish to carry forward disciplinary proceedings on the basis of somehow having resolved the question of mutual ecclesial recognizability in one's own mind before the fact? The Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops (or least a significant part of it) are plowing ahead with putative judgments about what is an Anglican Church, and who is in communion with whom and on what basis - even in the face of clear and admitted and contradictory views about this among Anglicans including American Anglicans. Do they really believe that this can do anything but add fuel to the fire? The current embarrassment or travesty, whichever it is, is proof that the attempt to cut the Gordian knot of Anglican ecclesiological ferment, disarray, and reordering - something many of us believe and pray will be a blessing and not a curse -- will lead to nothing more than further confusion and the stoking of the flames of mutual hostility.

There are already accusations that have been publicly expressed that the ongoing process leading to a vote over Bp. Duncan's deposition is fatally flawed by a failure to abide by canonical order, not to mention substantive truth. The situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin, in which the Presiding Bishop has intervened through the imposition of new oversight, in flagrant disregard of a legitimately functioning Standing Committee for that diocese, rises to the level of potential and serious canonical violation in its own right. Even if it turns out that, in both these cases as well as in the case of the latest vote for deposition, a persuasive case is eventually made that due process was followed, the failure to make that case prior to highly questionable actions displays an irresponsible lack of concern for the pastoral needs of the church and the consciences of the flock of Christ.

We have urged previously and we so urge again: that "TEC and other Anglican bishops pray for and take action so that this process of depositional discipline pauses indefinitely. They should do this for the sake of genuinely seeking discernment and resolution as to the ordering of our common life as Anglicans. There is nothing that legally demands that the process be carried through at this point and in the manner now laid out. There is every Christian reason to work for some other outcome."

As a consequence of this effort to settle things canonically when the timing is not proper or the tool the right one, we are now right where we were before: awaiting a judgment only the larger Communion can give. What now is Bishop Schofield's status? An effort to settle things has actually reopened them: a vote to accept a resignation appears deeply flawed, and so a cloud is now over the matter of ecclesiastical authority in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Either he remains that authority, or the standing committee -- and the issue is not resolved. That the Chancellor uses language like "it is our position" indicates clearly that a questionable use of a canon, and a questionable process to deploy it, has resulted only in questionable interpretation, and neither legal nor moral resolution.

Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner
The Anglican Communion Institute

“It’s one thing for her not to ‘recognize’ us,” Fr. Snell said. “Acting contrary to the canons of this diocese and of The Episcopal Church is another matter. The Presiding Bishop is not the ecclesiastical authority of this diocese and the canons of this diocese and the national church do not grant her the authority to call a diocesan convention or nominate someone for election as bishop.”

At the conclusion of the House of Bishops spring retreat on March 12, Bishop Jefferts Schori announced that she had nominated Bishop Lamb to stand for election as provisional Bishop of San Joaquin. She also said she would personally convene the March 29 special convention at which Bishop Lamb’s nomination was to be ratified. The agenda for the special convention also calls for undoing the constitutional changes approved during the annual convention last December. The constitutional amendments were used at the convention in December as legal justification to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.

The new constitution and canons to be proposed for adoption during the special convention on March 29 will be based largely on the constitution and canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin as they existed prior to December 2007. Under Article 5, Section 4 of the San Joaquin constitution, “special meetings of convention may be called by the ecclesiastical authority at any time provided at least thirty (30) days notice be given.” A proposed resolution seeks to insulate Bishop Jefferts Schori and other participants from legal action by calling “for the waiver and/or ratification of any potential defects in notice or other irregularities of calling the special convention.”

Fr. Snell said the controversy surrounding the number of bishops voting to depose Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin raised unanswered questions about the legality of the deposition. If Bishop Schofield was not validly deposed, then he remains the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese. If he has been deposed then under both national church and diocesan law, the standing committee becomes the ecclesiastical authority, not the Presiding Bishop.

“We are concerned that their presence within this diocese for the purpose they have announced will be confusing and misleading to faithful members,” Fr. Snell said. “Any action taken during that meeting will have no force or effect in the Diocese of San Joaquin.”

Steve Waring

As the first bishop to speak openly about having a homosexual relationship, he has heard fellow Anglicans describe gays as "lower than beasts". [Ed. Note this intentional misquote from the 1998 Lambeth Conference seems to have a life of its own on the web. It is a false statement still widely used by reporters, and clergy.]

The Guardian spent the Easter weekend with Robinson as he battled the winds and blizzards on a 400-mile road trip around his US diocese. But the conditions were nothing compared with those he has encountered trying to
make it to the Lambeth conference, the 10-yearly gathering of the world's Anglican bishops, which takes place in Canterbury, Kent, from July 16 to August 3.

Two weeks ago Robinson was told he would not be allowed to take part in the event - the only bishop out of 880 to be excluded. He will still go to Canterbury, but with no official status and the same access as a member of the public. Yet he will, inevitably, be one of its star attractions. Robinson will not go into detail, but says he has his own events planned, including one with award-winning actor and gay rights campaigner Sir Ian McKellen, who will perform a reading.

His official exclusion came as a blow to Robinson, who told a spring gathering of the US Episcopal church house of bishops that he felt abandoned by Williams. He wept during the address. "It was the hardest time I've had since my consecration," he said, driving along interstate 93. He suggested it was not his consecration or homosexuality that was tearing apart the Anglican communion, but a failure of the leadership.

"I don't know if it was Rowan's intention to divide the US house of bishops but he's done the very thing he was trying to avoid through his action or lack of action. It mystifies me that he has never commented on statements Akinola [the Archbishop of Nigeria] has made about homosexuality," he said.

Robinson has met Williams only once, although he has had three one-to-one encounters with the US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. For two years after he was elected, Robinson tried to meet the archbishop, who finally relented but would not receive Robinson at his official residence. "He wanted to meet in a secret location and I was not told where until after I got on the plane from the US."

Both men agreed to keep the contents of the meeting private and Robinson would only describe the atmosphere as cordial. "I felt sad for him. He was caught in a difficult situation and didn't know how to lead the church through it. But I don't think we need an archbishop in a role of leadership. We need an archbishop to symbolise unity," he said.
Before the summer, Robinson has scheduled a series of interviews to coincide with publication of his book, In the Eye of the Storm, and he will also appear in the US edition of GQ magazine.

"I am probably the only bishop to feature in a 10,000-word article. I was expecting Armani and George Clooney but they wanted me to wear my robes."

Back in Concord, in his office, is a box containing purple badges bearing a red heart and the slogan "Gene is here".
"Some people found out I wasn't getting an official invitation [to the Lambeth conference] and they were outraged. So they had these made up. I figure if you can't have fun with this you might as well stay home."

The small state of New Hampshire remains largely untouched by international disputes. "I wish people could see me for a bishop. It is tiring, I must say," he sighed, referring to the squabbling between rival camps. "On the one hand I would like to be known as Bishop Gene Robinson but it's an accident of history that I'm the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican communion. I've learned to live with that."

His parishioners are unfazed about receiving communion from one of the most controversial clerics in the world, with some admitting that they paid scant attention to what was happening in the Anglican communion.

At All Saints Church, Littleton, Heather McIntire, who had baked brownies for the Maundy Thursday supper, said her main concern was going to a church that was welcoming and friendly. "I happen to be divorced and some churches don't like that. In a small town, people see you on your own and rumours fly. This church is non-judgmental, it's inclusive, and I feel like I belong here," she said.

The following day in Colebrook, a depressed rural town with a population of several thousand, Robinson shared the pulpit with preachers from other denominations, including Methodist, Roman Catholic and Protestant. There were no rainbow flags or protesters to welcome him.

New Hampshire does not, as one resident pointed out, have a "big, gay liberal agenda". It has problems with unemployment, poverty and spousal abuse. Its people are mostly white and, in the more remote areas of the state, they are working class with traditional values.

Marlyn Neary, vicar of St Stephen's, left Roman Catholicism 40 years ago to join the Episcopal Church. She has five cousins who are gay or lesbian. "I didn't see a lot [of homosexuality] until after Gene was elected. I was very much on the fence as to what caused people to be homosexual. I became more aware after 2003 [when Robinson became bishop]. It's made my relationship with them a little better."

After the two-hour ecumenical service, Robinson headed for Howard's, a local restaurant, for a much-needed dessert stop before his next appointment in Plymouth, 96 miles away. Pointing at the slab of pie threatening to fall off his plate he said: "When I come to Colebrook I have to come to Howard's. Their pies are to die for. This would be my last supper."

In between mouthfuls of coconut cream pie, he told the story of how, when he was once getting ready for New Orleans mardi gras, he struggled to find the finishing touch to his Carmen Miranda outfit. He had the outsized fruit and the hat, all he lacked were hooped earrings. When he was in the bathroom, he noticed the rings on the shower curtain and decided to use those instead of jewellery. It is an unconventional image, but Robinson delights in non-conformism. He carries his bishop's staff in a rifle case, has a police-radar detector attached to his dashboard, which also responds to microwave ovens, and holidays on the glamorous island of St Bart's in the Caribbean.
"I love this diocese, it's been my home since 1975. It will be 33 years on June 1. Here I can be the kind of bishop I want to be. It's small in size and in terms of population. In a huge diocese you can't be involved or intimate."
He preaches, he said, between four and seven times a week, often rising as early as 4am to pray, write sermons and check emails on his BlackBerry. It is the quietest time in his house, which he shares with his partner, Mark Andrews, who is more private than the beaming and chatty cleric. Robinson addresses him as sweetheart on the phone.

"He's adorable. He's my anchor, he's very steady. Being in the public eye is his worst nightmare. But he's wholly supportive. He comes with me when I visit parishes on a Sunday. I didn't think he would. But parishioners love him. He found a ministry in all of this too."

Robinson's homosexuality was not an issue when he was a priest. It was only after his election that talk of schism emerged. "Interestingly, the people who are unhappy with homosexuals are also the ones unhappy with women in the priesthood. My ordination was something around which conservatives could rally and bring about further division," he said.

Yesterday afternoon Robinson conducted a service at a men's prison in New Hampshire, leading convicted criminals in reflection and prayer.

Afterwards, he said he had received more than he gave while he was inside. "Practically every single one of the guys was telling me they were praying for me," he said. "One guy had read all the stuff about Lambeth and he was saying how hard it was for him to feel kindly about people who have excluded him and treated him in a way that makes him feel less than human. To have them praying for me and sharing being on the fringes is an extraordinary experience."

Visiting the prisons is one of his favourite parts of the job. "It feels closer to what Jesus told us to do," he said.

Close to home

For better or worse, our (Anglican) priorities have been local rather than national. They have certainly not been international. The suspension of Jim Packer’s licence to minister suddenly brings it all very close to home. The name of Jim Packer has an iconic resonance across vast swathes of English evangelicalism. If Jim Packer is being suspended from the Anglican Church in Canada today, then who knows what will happen here tomorrow? These issues are not going to go away. We may feel deeply reluctant - but it is time to get our heads above the parapet."

Dr Packer is an icon for people across the evangelical spectrum – so this aggressive attack on him is an attack on us all. Professor Harrison shows there is no middle ground where orthodox views are respectfully listened to by those who disagree. Why would an 82 year old theologian who is revered globally be seen as worthy of suspension? Because the liberal person objects to the imposition of a supposedly universal truth on the difficult situations of particular cases. While he seeks justice and fair treatment for all, the liberal objects to conservatives making the truth of the bible a universal norm for everyone in a way that he regards as oppressive. Because Dr Packer falls foul of that charge, even his age and eminence are no protection for him against the moral high ground of abstract justice. Gay unions are blessed, active gays made bishops, and Dr Packer is threatened with suspension. Welcome to the future to which some parts of the Anglican Communion are currently heading.

On the same footing

Professor Harrison’s remarks about what in other words would be called ’parochialism’ are specially revealing. That is why the Global Anglican Future Conference will be so important. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians chapters 2-3 makes it clear that the evidence that the death of Jesus has been effective in changing the world is the emergence of a community that crosses the major social and religious barriers (2.19-22) His death has broken down the dividing walls of hostility (2.14) Paul’s correspondence with all the churches deals with some aspect of building these communities where Jewish and Gentile Christians belong on the same footing rooted in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of his Spirit. GAFCON will represent hundreds of Gentile Christians coming back to Jerusalem from where this global community of Christians burst forth, and whose Gentile membership on equal terms was endorsed by the first council in Acts 15.

The Anglican Communion (membership 55 million) seeks to be a global church. The way the communion is currently run internationally neither gives membership on equal terms nor allows the space for the majority who are orthodox to be themselves. None of the current instruments of the Communion have done or said anything about Dr Packer’s suspension. GAFCON will seek to be properly representative of the communion. 60% of the Communion lives in Africa and 60% of the participants of the Pilgrimage are expected to be from Africa.

Not global and you’re dead

A leading Christian businessman recently said that in business now unless you are ready to be Global you are dead. The challenge of the GAFCON movement is that churches who wish to be orthodox need to be Global, be in partnership with, mutually interdependent on and accountable to others around the globe. GAFCON will represent many opportunities to develop and give expression to global partnership for churches across cultural and economic divides. The current crisis has meant that North American congregations have had to be ready to relate to African leaders, and seek their advice, guidance and leadership. Could any other situation but a threat to their Anglican existence and identity have brought this about?

Being Global as a Christian (go into all the world) has always been a matter of Biblical obedience. Now it has become a matter of practical necessity for orthodox survival in an international fellowship. Dr Packer will in future hold the licence of a Bishop who is licenced by the Archbishop of the Southern Cone of America. Unless we are Global Anglicans we will be cease to be Anglican.