Episcopal Church ‘in the clear’ after Lambeth

From George Conger:

There will be no consequences to the American church for its push for gay bishops and blessings, bishops attending the opening session of the US House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City said in closed door session on Sept 17.

On the opening day of the three-day special session, called by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to discuss the 2008 Lambeth Conference, but amended on Sept 12 by the Presiding Bishop to act upon her motion to depose conservative leader Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, the bishops offered their reactions to Lambeth.

Read it all.

Boycott of Lambeth 2008 is “most serious challenge yet”

From George Conger writing in the Church of England Newspaper [boldface mine]:

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to invite the American, Canadian and Central American bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson to Lambeth led to 214 bishops boycotting the conference, a study by The Church of England Newspaper has found.

A review of registration data and attendance figures gathered during the conference finds that 206 diocesan and 8 suffragan bishops declined to attend the July 16 to Aug 3 conference. While boycotts affected the 1998, 1868 and 1888 conferences—the 2008 boycott was the most serious challenge to the integrity of the meeting.

The Anglican Communion comprises 729 dioceses, missionary districts, and ecclesial entities divided into 38 provinces and six extra-provincial jurisdictions. Approximately 260 dioceses and jurisdictions within the Communion were not represented by their diocesan bishops at Lambeth. Not all absences were the result of a conscious decision not to accept Dr. Rowan Williams’ invitation to Lambeth.

A number of sees are vacant, while exigent circumstances prevented some bishops from attending. . .

Of those identified as absent by CEN, 214 bishops from 10 provinces made an affirmative decision not to accept Dr. Williams’ invitation due to reasons of conscience: Australia 7; Southern Cone 1; Episcopal Church 1; Church of England 3; Uganda 30; Nigeria 137; Kenya 25; Rwanda 8; South East Asia 1; and Jerusalem and the Middle East 1.

From Africa’s 324 dioceses, 200 diocesan bishops (61 percent) were identified as having refused Dr. Williams’ invitation. . .

Read it all.

Blogging and Lambeth 2008

Well, now that Lambeth 2008 has come and gone, there is a definite diminution of blogging going on around the Internet. Some of it is because there’s just not as much going on (although don’t forget to check out BabyBlue’s CANA Council posts) but I think much of the decrease is because Lambeth changed little.

And with little change has come somewhat of a sense of ennui, of apathy, especially if one is in a traditional parish in a revisionist diocese.

There is no turning back, there will be no change within The Episcopal Church except continued movement away from the Gospel.

There will be no rescue – there is only slugging on year after year.

If one is firmly of the belief that he or she is following God’s will, while staying in ECUSA may be frustrating, there is a certain fulfillment in being obedient to the Lord (and the anxiety of “when are we going to leave?” disappears as well).

If one is not sure, it would be pure agony to remain in a church that no longer holds to a “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” formula. Continued prayer and discernment are called for, and then action, no matter how difficult, is required one way or another. Stay or go, but do so out of conviction of the Father’s will. Don’t remain trapped in a lukewarm decision or let the paralysis of indecision eat away at one’s faith.

If one knows it is time to go, then the question is “to where?” And discernment is again essential (and difficult). I think GAFCON was (and is) a great idea. It illustrated for all that the Global South and its supporters have realized that ECUSA will not turn back, will not stop, so it’s time to move on in mission with those who trust the Lord.

Following biblical injunction, Global South primates tried talking with and confronting those they felt had moved away from Christ. Once it was clear that nothing would change, the Global South essentially dusted off their sandals and left - left not the Anglican Communion (clever, clever), but the poisonous atmosphere of heresy.

If GAFCON can continue on (and that’s a big if, with the elephant in the room of women’s ordination), I really do think that it will over time become, at the very least, the de facto Anglican Communion center.

Thoughts from the other side: Mark Harris and the Lambeth requests

This is an excerpt of a much longer piece from Mark Harris, an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Delaware, on his blog, Preludium [boldface mine]:

. . . Lambeth 2008 left things as they were, say, two weeks before it began. The status quo ante is just there. Nothing changed save the fact that people mostly kept talking, except for those who were not going to talk.

The strong possibility is that every element of the “status quo ante” will fail to be resolved in the near future. My sense is:

Moratoria concerning blessing and ordination of gay persons in relationship will not hold.

The Pastoral Forum, like its predecessor proposals, arises not from the affected churches but from some committee or commission of the “instruments of unity.” My sense is it will not be accepted by the Episcopal Church as it relates to dioceses who wish to leave the Episcopal Church. It seems clear that the Common Cause Partnership finds this proposal lacking as well.

The Anglican Covenant is an important exercise in finding a way to express the sense we have that there is a friend in the room, an inward and spiritual grace. It is only modest as a bill of particulars about the Anglican Communion or Anglicansim. If it contains clauses, appendices, or other addenda that require submission to the rule of an extra church council it will not easily be signed by any church that values its ecclesial autonomy. This is as true I suspect for the Church of England and the Church of Nigeria as it is for the Episcopal Church.

One thing we can be sure of is that the failure to complete any of these tasks will be blamed more and more on the innovative churches of North America (TEC and ACoC and increasingly on other Churches in the Anglican Communion who share some of their pastoral and prophetic concerns (Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Mexico, etc.). While willing to share the “blame,” we should understand the blame game to be toxic and spiritually deadening. . .

Read it all. I don't agree with his theology (revisionist) but I do agree with his thoughts here on how the Lambeth requests will play out.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson, August 22

Via email, from the American Anglican Council, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson for August 22, 2008 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Early this week I attended a Common Cause Partnership Lead Bishops' meeting, with discussions naturally centered around outcomes of the Lambeth Conference and the GAFCON Primates' Council meeting, and concerns for finally putting together a North American orthodox Anglican province. From there I went to a CANA-Nigeria Council meeting, with lay and clergy representatives from CANA congregations all over the USA. Visitors from other Anglican judicatories are also present observing the events, both plenary and breakout sessions.

These Anglican gatherings, such as CANA Council as well as AMiA's Winter Conference and ACN events, are so different from the atmosphere of stress and hostility that many experienced when still serving in liberal revisionist dioceses in the Episcopal Church. At these type of orthodox Anglican gatherings one can actually relax, move deeper into worship, accept sound teaching, and fellowship with others who are of similar faith. To God be the glory!

We note that a letter from Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh to Bishop Lillibridge of West Texas, which was forwarded with permission to the Windsor Continuation Group members, was leaked by someone either in Bishop Lillibridge's office or one of the Windsor Continuation Group members. Does the Windsor Continuation Group really wish to be in conversation with Bishop Duncan or the Common Cause Partnership Federation, a likely new Anglican Province in North America? There are ways to make slight modifications in a document and code them so that the miscreant identifies himself when he leaks a document. Perhaps next time, that might be an appropriate option.

One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates' Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser. But remember, if Dr Williams semi-secretly believes in the gay agenda, he cannot and will not ever really discipline TEC; rather, he would send the orthodox back for TEC to have a second go at them. I don't think the orthodox will buy that idea. That train goes to the death camp and we're not getting on it.

Andrew Carey, journalist for the Church of England Newspaper, has done a short but excellent recap on the Episcopal Church, and it is worth your taking a look. I think Andrew really gets it - now if only Dr. N. T. Wright would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what Carey has said, the C of E would be in a better position to be a help to the Communion.

Now to close with a note of optimism: in northern Virginia, Judge Bellows has again ruled in favor of the local churches in the TEC & Diocese of Virginia lawsuit against the orthodox Anglican churches who left with their property. TEC & Virginia will keep suing and appealing, however, burning up money in lawyers' fees as part of a strategy. For churches to prevail over the bully TEC and the diocese, the churches need to have the local law on their side, the facts on their side, and enough money to stay in court forever. TEC loses on the law and loses on the facts, but if they can burn enough money, they can win by financially exhausting any opponent, as unjust as that is. But now I ask you, is a denomination like that where you want your children and grandchildren to go to church? When you go to a revisionist TEC diocese like Virginia, do you really want your Sunday morning offering to go not to the Glory of God, not to the heat/lights/salaries of a local church, not to mission work, but to persecute orthodox churches in order to force them out of their churches and onto the street? I would think that even the liberals and revisionists would get tired of that after while. For now, the orthodox Anglicans in the USA are praying for a final victory in Judge Bellows' court, and for TEC to move on to the MDG's that they keep talking about.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

American Episcopal bishop surprises, upsets Lambeth Conference

From the Abilene reporternews [boldface mine]:

The career of Bishop Catherine Roskam of the Diocese of New York has been built on her skills as a cross-cultural ambassador for the modern Episcopal Church.

She led the International Concerns Committee of her denomination's executive council, helped create her diocese's Global Women's Fund and has worked as a consultant on issues of cultural sensitivity. In some circles, she is known as the bishop who dared to rap during a "Hip-Hop Mass" a few years ago in the Bronx.

"My sistas and brothas, all my homies and peeps, stay up -- keep your head up, holla back and go forth and tell it like it is," proclaimed the bishop, in her benediction.

Thus, the diminutive, white-haired assistant bishop was an unlikely figure to inspire bold, angry headlines during the recent Lambeth Conference of bishops from the global Anglican Communion. . .

It was especially important not to inflame already painful disputes between Third World traditionalists and liberals in the United States, Canada, England and elsewhere.

Then, during planned discussions of domestic violence, Roskam spoke out on an unlikely topic -- bishops who beat their wives.

"We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives? Chances are they do," argued Roskam, in The Lambeth Witness, a daily newsletter for gay-rights supporters in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

"The most devout Christians beat their wives. ... Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult."

The key, she added, is that "Violence against women, and violence against children for that matter, is violence against the defenseless. With women, it goes hand-in-hand with misogyny."

The New York bishop's accusations rocked the conference, which was already tense because of the absence of about 280 conservative bishops -- many from Nigeria and Uganda -- who declined to attend because of the presence of U.S. leaders who backed the 2003 consecration of the openly gay and noncelibate Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Only 617 Anglican bishops preregistered and some of those failed to attend, according to a report in The Living Church magazine. Thus, nearly a quarter of the bishops in attendance came from the small but wealthy U.S. Episcopal Church.

The most damaging part of Roskam's pronouncement was her tone of moral and cultural superiority, noted commentator Riazat Butt. It was easy for bishops from the Global South to read between the lines and find painful traces of colonialism.

"What bishops should be ... concerned about is her insinuation that a nonwhite culture leads to domestic violence and that white, Western culture is too civilized and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur," argued Butt, in The Guardian. "Roskam fails to recognize that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.". . .

Now, a decade later [after Lambeth 1998], a female bishop from a liberal diocese in America provided new evidence that these kinds of cultural stereotypes are hard to bury.

This kind of guilt-by-association game is not going to ease tensions in the Anglican Communion, noted Archbishop of York John Sentamu.

"I have never beaten my wife, although I can't talk about other people," Sentamu told the London Times. "There is a danger of stereotyping people because of the culture they come from and assuming they must surely be doing it. ... I hope Bishop Catherine has got figures and numbers and people. Because if not, she is in danger of causing an unnecessary rumpus."

Read it all.

You know, I read about this at the time and debated whether Bishop Roskam was being racist or arrogant in making the assumptions she did.

I've now decided her words and actions were both:

• racist (and misandrist) because she reproved only non-American/non-European male bishops, and


• arrogant because she implies that those non-American/non-European places are culturally inferior. She says, "Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally accepted to beat your wife. In that regard, it makes conversation quite difficult." In other words, conversation is difficult because while we recognize that physical abuse is wrong, you don't and so you won't be able to understand our superior perspective.

I hope Archbishop Sentamu continues to ask for those "figures and numbers and people" so we will all know exactly to whom Bishop Roskam is referring, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Archbishop Orombi clarifies The Times letter

From Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV [boldface mine]:

After The Times newspaper printed a letter from Archbishop [Henry] Orombi [of the Church of Uganda], AnglicanTV contacted His Grace for further clarification. Specifically we wanted to know if the Archbishop was implying he wanted Rowan to resign. Below is Archbishop Orombi's response.

Kevin Kallsen (AnglicanTV): Does your letter in The Times this week imply that you are calling for the resignation of the ABC?

Archbishop Henry Orombi: No. I am not suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should resign. And, for the record, it was The Times (of London) that approached me about writing an essay on why the Church of Uganda Bishops were not attending Lambeth.

It seems to me that the maturing of the global nature of the Anglican Communion, beyond its colonial beginnings, would involve separating the role of the spiritual leader of the Communion from that of the Primate of All England. The Primate of All England should still retain the title primus inter pares, for he does retain a significant place of honour and historical significance. I would not want to diminish that in any way. We are very grateful for the British missionaries who came to us in Uganda and brought to us the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall never forget that and never cease giving thanks.

However, I do think it's time to realise that the Anglican Communion is no longer an extension of the Church of England. The Church of England is, of course, free to elect or appoint their Primate in whatever way they deem appropriate. But, should the Primate of All England necessarily or automatically be the spiritual leader of a world-wide, global Communion? That's the question I am asking.

And, may I just add, that I agree with Archbishop Rowan (and others) when he says that "the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance." To that, I would also add quality education, adequate health services, and freedom from the power of sin and oppression by demonic spirits. We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality – despite the imbalance portrayed by the press.

But, what we in the Global South have strongly maintained is this: When you are known to be the "Gay Church" and a church that can't discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can "agree to disagree" about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis. It is not enough to be able to say that the official position of the Anglican Communion is Lambeth 1.10, because the lack of enforcement of that resolution seems to, in fact, render it null and void.

The crisis in the Communion is about authority – biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority. Regrettably, all the proposals coming out of the Windsor Continuation Group have been tried in the past five years and failed. However, even before we begin a re-examination of the Instruments of Communion and, in particular, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we do have within our structures the ability to bring order out of the present chaos. Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury missed his biggest window of opportunity. If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.

It seems to me that the functions proposed for the Pastoral Forum are exactly what the Primates of the Communion have been charged to do. The 1988 Lambeth Conference urged the Primates' Meeting to "exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters" and the 1998 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed this. Are not Primates, duly elected from the various Provinces, in a better position than a "Commission" or "Forum"? We do not need the proliferation of more groups, committees, commissions, etc. to resolve this crisis. What we need is the enforcement/implementation of matters that have already been widely agreed.

Archbishop may be forced to do fundraising tour to solve £1m Lambeth financial crisis

But not, apparently, in America. From the Telegraph (U.K.) [boldface mine]:

The once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which was branded an "expensive exercise in futility" when it finished on Sunday with no agreement over the divisive issue of homosexuality, cost almost £6million to stage.

Most of the money was spent on hiring the University of Kent campus in Canterbury for three weeks, and for providing food and transport for the 670 prelates and their spouses.

But the Lambeth Company, the arm of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion that runs the conference, urgently needs to raise at least another £1m.

To help pay its bills, it was disclosed yesterday that the Archbishops' Council, part of the Church of England, has provided the organisers with an interest-free £600,000 loan after holding an emergency meeting.

The head of the Anglican church in America - the richest province in the Communion - also disclosed that it has been asked to "foot the bill" and claimed that the Archbishop of Canterbury will tour the states to raise money.

The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, said: "Yes we've been asked and the bishops of this church responded in ways that would provide bursaries for those unable to attend.

"I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to come to the United States and do some fundraising work, and we have certainly offered our assistance in that."

Lambeth Palace denied that Dr Rowan Williams will travel to America to ask churches for money, despite the Presiding Bishop's claims. . .

Read it all.

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson for August 8 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Lambeth is now over. Many of us are studying not only the documents of Lambeth, but the detailed analyses that are being produced by various sources, and then sitting back and saying, "OK, what is really going on, and how does this play out in the next year?"

Reports came in from Lambeth that a number of TEC revisionist bishops were spreading misinformation in their Indaba groups about the state of litigation in the United States. Their claim was that the orthodox churches and dioceses "were suing them," and the blame was really to be put on the orthodox. This is untrue, but it has been proven that if a lie is told often enough, people begin to believe there is something to it. Let us look at a few examples of lawsuits in the US.

In California, the bishop of Los Angeles is suing the orthodox churches, as is also the case in the diocese of San Diego. The Los Angeles orthodox churches won in the lower court and were reversed in a Court of Appeals, and the case is now before the California Supreme Court. The point to take away is that Bishop J. Jon Bruno initiated the lawsuit, demanding even the children's Sunday School crayons (no, I am not joking, you can read it in the public record), and for anyone, especially a California bishop, to assert that they were sued first is a deliberate untruth.

In Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee had worked out an arbitration procedure that would have allowed the churches and the diocese to negotiate an agreed-upon settlement and avoid litigation. The churches proceeded with their parish votes and the registration of the vote tallies with the local Court Houses, as per the 1867 Virginia law that applied to church splits. When the TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori heard about it, she advised Bishop Lee that "there is a new sheriff in town." Lee was told that if he didn't sue the churches, TEC would sue him. Bishop Lee uncharacteristically buckled under the pressure, and without advance notice, launched the lawsuits. For him to say that the Virginia churches sued him would be a gross violation of the truth also.

Somewhere in the United States, a parish may have asked for a declaratory judgment to settle issues of property title, or may have, once they were sued, filed a counter suit in defense, but it has been the model of the orthodox churches not to use the courts to attack bishops, dioceses, or TEC. The very aggressive stance that TEC has taken was first formulated by leadership within the Presbyterian Church in the US, and it appears that TEC Chancellor David Booth Beers is following the Presbyterian game plan to a "P."

As I mentioned above, there are lengthy reviews of the Lambeth documents available, but as an extremely brief summary you must notice that those who prepared the Indaba Reflections Document prepared it as a "reflection," not as a "mind of the Conference." It was not intended for the document to be the primary outcome of the conference, but simply a narrative to track what people and groups were expressing. Finally, the Reflections were not to our knowledge voted on or formally adopted by the Conference, nor was the document intended to be a resolution that called for specific action.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury took the document and re-characterized it according to his agenda for the future, with the implied endorsement of the entire Lambeth Conference - although it was only a small group's compilation of "reflections." If they didn't know what they were producing, Dr. Williams certainly knew what he wanted, and it did serve his purposes.

Dr. Williams would like us to believe that almost everyone wants the three moratoria on same-sex blessings, gays in the episcopate, and border crossings to be effected. No vote on this was actually taken, but on his word we are to believe this. Dr. Williams would also like us to believe that there is "a strong consensus on the need to examine how the Instruments of Communion will best work." Already voices in TEC are shrilly announcing that they have no intention of having any moratoria on anything, and some have suggested that the General Convention of TEC in the summer of 2009 will overturn any agreement to refrain from consecrations of gay bishops.

Another of Dr. Williams' points is that some sort of covenant is desirable, although the extent of its power will have to be determined. The breakdown will, of course, occur when we get to the specifics of the covenant's contents. Will it be adequate as a covenant to prevent prevarication, and will there be actual consequences for those that either break the covenant or don't sign it?

Dr. Williams believes that most favor a Pastoral Forum as something that would help the situation and he is looking for detail on how it will be formed. What is not discussed is his lack of resolve for actually incurring painful consequences. His abysmal performance with the Panel of Reference and the lack of funding available will be crucial factors. If he needs to ask TEC for money for this, you know in advance the outcome has been bought.

Dr. Williams is already $4 million US dollars in the hole for shortfall on the just-ended Lambeth Conference. He has reportedly asked Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori for permission to raise money from TEC in the United States to help cover the debt. Next year he proposes having the JSC and the ACC and the Primates all meeting in one year. Will there be a budget shortfall next year, too? If so, who would cover it?

Dr. Williams is a master at building things designed not to work, such as the Panel of Reference, and now, the Lambeth Conference. All of this is to keep us together while we listen to his encouragement, promises and announcement of another meeting in six or nine or twelve months. In much of the Anglican world, however, everyone is a bit wiser now, and we realize the cause for his procrastination is that he secretly agrees with the gay agenda and hopes that if he can avoid an actual split, in time we will all come along. It is, after all, happening in England, and why can't everyone be like the Church of England, which lets the secular government tell it what is moral and proper? The latest bizarre story is the Bishop of Exeter, the Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, giving his blessing for a "gay wedding" between Canon Rodney Bomford and his gardener Paddy O'Neil. The marriage couple held a "stag and hen party" at a local pub and apparently the "bride" dressed up in a pink top hat and had a sash.

Letters that Dr. Williams wrote as recently as 2002, when he was appointed as Archbishop, reveal his real beliefs, and they help us to understand why he cannot and will not act to bring the Anglican Communion into good order and faith. His comments, which several British newspapers have now seen and reported on, refute the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. He goes on to express his hope the the Anglican Communion will at some point change its position to be open to gay partnerships.

He is quoted as saying, "The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behavior for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature." His reported academic brilliance may be as the "emperor's clothes;" this type of remark does such violence to the plain reading of scripture that it should disqualify any such speaker from any level of Holy Orders.

The concept that homosexuality is natural is fully unproven, but, like other types of propaganda, if repeated enough times, some will begin to believe it. For a moment, for the sake of argument, suppose that homosexuality is natural. It then joins many kinds of behavior that are "natural" but forbidden in the Kingdom of God. We are called to put aside the natural in order to put on the supernatural. Violence is very natural for human beings, yet we are called as Christians to turn aside from violence. An eye for an eye is natural, but forgiveness as God forgives us is the model we are called to. When scripture says that men are not to lie with men as with a woman, what part of that is not clear to Dr. Williams? It is an encompassing statement, permitting of no nuancing; it has no footnotes about only applying to heterosexual males who are doing something that they really don't want to do anyway. It uses inclusive language - men are not to do this. Other passages refer to women, lest they feel slighted by omission. Scripture is uncomfortably clear on most of the difficult things such as sex and money, so why is it that the "Primus inter Pares" of the Anglican Communion, who is reputed to be a brilliant scholar, cannot read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these scriptures? Hmm.

If you want to know where all of this is going, read what Rowan had written when he didn't know it would be in the London Times and the Telegraph. Then connect the dots. It does make me wonder if in fact a Queen's option still exists. This revelation about Dr. Williams tells us much about how his use of these post-Lambeth bodies will advance not only his stated agenda, but his now-more-visible underlying agenda.

Let us pray for the Anglican Church, that God's will (not anyone else's) be done. And let us pray for better times and for faithful leaders that the orthodox laity and clergy can truly trust, look up to, and follow.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Peter Toon: From Lambeth 1930 to Lambeth 2008

From Mere Comments at Touchstone, an article by Peter Toon:

The Lambeth Conference of 1930: Its continuing influence on the Morals and Behavior of Anglicans.

“It is about as clear as any historical chain can get that the continuing implosion of The Episcopal Church is a direct consequence of the famous Lambeth Conference in 1930” [First Things, August 2008, page 40].

So what happened in 1930 of such consequence? Whatever did the assembled Bishops (mostly from the West in those days) do or say to be so important and far-reaching?

Do not be surprised! They spoke about sex and family life in which they said many helpful and even wise things (see Resolutions 9-20 of the Conference). However, in one Resolution, in which they were also trying to be helpful (and relevant!), they gave advice that was wholly innovatory in 1930 for a traditional Christian Church, be it Catholic or Protestant. Here is Resolution 15:

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.

In the Early Church, in the Medieval Church, in the Churches of the Protestant Reformation and in the Christian tradition to the 1920s (e.g., see the Marriage Service in The BCP 1662), any form of artificial birth control in order to make the sexual act sterile was regarded as a serious sin against God’s holy law. In 1930 the Anglican Council of Bishops, for what seemed to be good pastoral reasons, suggested ways for Christian couples in certain circumstances to reject this law.

By this Resolution, which went around the world like wild-fire, the Anglican Way was changed permanently. No attempt has been made in any Lambeth Conference since 1930 to reverse it, and no national or regional synod of the Anglican Communion has officially rejected it. Thus it stands as part of the modern, Anglican teaching on sexual relations within marriage.

To quote from First Things again: “By giving benediction in 1930 to married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell other members — married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual — not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals” (page 40). . .

Read it all.

The +Mathes/++Venables cage match

Okay, so I'm a little behind and am still catching up, but here is the letter from Bishop James Mathes to the Diocese of San Diego in which he avers that ++Gregory Venables apologized for incursions into San Diego:

July 31, 2008
Ignatius of Loyola

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I know many of you have felt frustrated by the slow progress of the discussions at Lambeth, so I want to share with you immediately an important step toward healing that occurred Wednesday morning.

Over breakfast, Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Church of the Southern Cone, apologized for not contacting me before making incursions into the Diocese of San Diego. Over the past two years, Bishop Venables together with Bishop Frank Lyons of the same province, have made numerous episcopal visits to our diocese without my knowledge or consent. I was heartened by his apology and relieved to hear him say he had not received either of the two letters I had sent protesting these actions and outlining the harm they caused to the church here in San Diego. Previously, I had taken his silence to mean his actions were intentional.

In light of these new developments, I have proposed that we continue discussing how to mend the tear these incursions have caused in our diocese. I am in preliminary conversations with Richard Blackburn of the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center as a possible mediator for these discussions. I'm delighted to say that Bishop Venables has agreed to consider such a plan and we will be meeting for breakfast tomorrow to discuss it further.

This kind of mutual walking towards each other and entering into respectful dialogue is exactly what the Archbishop of Canterbury has called us to over the past two weeks. Please pray that this, and other breakthroughs of generous love, will be the true fruit of this conference.

Faithfully,

James R. Mathes
Bishop of San Diego

To which Archbishop Venables responded:

I met with Bp Mathes as I have met with many people during the conference and during the conversation mentioned that I was sorry I hadn’t taken the trouble to tell him what we were doing and why.

And then we have ++Venables in his own words, thanks to Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV:

So I think we can rest assured that San Diego Anglican churches under ++Venables are under godly leadership that is leading them forward.

Weekly American Anglican Council message (August 1)

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson from August 1 [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ Jesus,

Lambeth is going into its last weekend, and soon it will be time for all of the bishops in attendance to hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and go home. So what is happening in these closing days, and what might the bishops be bringing home with them?

On July 29, the Archbishop of Canterbury and convener of the Lambeth Conference gave a speech, in which he opined that the official Conference statement will speak from the center - but then he had to clarify what that means. It apparently does not mean the midpoint between two extremes, but rather from the heart of our identity as Anglicans. When you see language like that, you know that you are being set up. He has first of all posited that the revisionists are an extreme, and likewise the orthodox conservatives are an equal extreme. Those who stand for 2000 years of orthodox teaching and practice have, by fiat of Dr. Williams, become an extreme, and different from where he stands, which is vaguely described as "from the heart of our identity as Anglicans...and that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ."

Excuse me, but I believe that description of "the centre" is exactly where the orthodox see themselves standing. If he thinks the center of orthodoxy is somewhere else he is once again seriously mistaken.

He then begins to use squishy, TEC-like words when he speaks of an "intelligent generosity" to be born. I would agree with him that it is important to know and understand what each group really means and needs, and a win-win approach such as put forward in the popular book "Getting to Yes" would require such, but all of this pre-supposes that the issues can be resolved. If Dr. Williams understood, really understood, the issues, he would have to come to the sad conclusion that unity is no longer possible or even desirable at this time.

Dr. Williams has stated in the past that there is no theological divide between TEC and the Communion. The truth is that his examination of TEC was done while he had his eyes firmly closed. The American Anglican Council put into his hands (actually in the hands of his Lambeth Palace staff, to be given to him) prior to the New Orleans TEC House of Bishops meeting, a compilation showing TEC's lack of compliance with the Dar es Salaam requirements. It wasn't a text of our writing; we simply printed - unaltered - the words of senior TEC leaders, including Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, which, in page after page, documented TEC's theological deviation from orthodox Anglican belief and practice.

Did he read it? Going into the HOB meeting Dr. Williams either knew or should have known of TEC's words and actions after Dar es Salaam. The AAC's document gave him the first-hand research he needed to make a decision, and the truth was that TEC's level of compliance was abysmal. Yet, perhaps in this same spirit of "intelligent generosity," he declared what was not compliance in any sense to be good enough. Dr. Williams is now faced with a Solomonic decision and he can't bear the price of that decision, so he writes in circles leaving everyone wondering exactly what he is saying and why.

Is the desired outcome to keep both TEC and the orthodox in the Communion, but to marginalize the orthodox so that they are rendered impotent? In Dar es Salaam, Dr. Williams urged the Primates to accept a plan to push all of the former TEC congregations and clergy back into TEC under so-called Windsor Bishops. After apparently heated negotiations, the Primates agreed to that conditionally, with an exception given to CANA and AMiA, since they already had bishops who are resident in the USA. In exchange for all of this, TEC was supposed to agree to make certain changes. TEC didn't make any changes, TEC rejected the alternative oversight scheme, and the overseas connections continued to grow as more churches and then a diocese left.

Dr. Williams and his coterie have not given up on this idea of forcing the departed congregations and dioceses back into TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada), only now they are using the term Communion Partners in one instance and Anglican Pastoral Forum in another. This is a serious matter on several levels. Firstly, it is based on a false supposition that those who have left would willingly go back to the increasingly pantheistic provinces from which they fled. Secondly, the idea of forcing congregations back into TEC and the Canadian church clearly shows a lack of understanding as to how far these bodies have deviated from historic Christian belief and how determined they are to maintain their current direction. Does anyone really think TEC or their Canadian brothers will abide by any sort of moratoria? Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Buried well within the Windsor Continuation Report is a sentence worth flagging: "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion." When Archbishop Clive Handford was further questioned on the Report, Steve Waring of the Living Church noted that Handford advised that the Windsor Continuation Group would not permit any new parish or diocese to "opt out" of its diocese or province. Other reports from the Windsor Continuation Group indicated that the moratoria would be on 1) PUBLIC parish same-sex blessings/weddings and 2) consecrations of homosexual bishops. The inference is that private blessings of same-sex unions would continue along with ordinations of actively homosexual priests and deacons.

Additionally the Report called for an Anglican Pastoral Forum (Panel of Reference redux?) which would act quickly (is that Anglican?) to mitigate conflict. How would this be staffed and funded adequately and how would this be actually enforced with any muscle? Handford then used an analogy which was astonishingly patronizing at best and seriously misconstrued at worst. He compared those North Americans who have fled the abuse of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada to those who in a family aren't getting on: "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family."

Dear Archbishop Handford, the problem is not the child who flees physical and emotional abuse at the hands of a pathologically flawed parent; it is the pathology, spiritual or physical, of the parent(s) who abuse their children. In Atlanta, USA, an abused child was mistakenly sent back to live with the parent who had done the abuse, and when the child was killed by the parent, the authorities began pointing fingers at each other. You will not send us back to suffer under TEC, full stop. TEC is committed to revisionist theology that threatens the souls of those who believe its teachings, and it is committed to the homosexual agenda of full parity (if not more) in the church, and TEC will not step back from this. Listen to what TEC is saying - and in this case they are telling you the truth - there is no going back for them.

It is alarming that Williams, Hanford, et al. apparently believe in a Pollyanna solution that ignores the hard realities. Pushing forward a Windsor Continuation Group, an Anglican Pastoral Forum, and a Communion Partners Group will not take the air out of the decisions reached at GAFCON. What will work is fully disciplining TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and taking the Communion down the true middle which is historic Christian Anglican orthodoxy. When TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada fully repent, change their theological viewpoint and behavior and become orthodox again, then talk about reunification of North American churches is appropriate, but not before.

I am afraid that it finally comes down to leadership and whether the leaders have the accurate vision, the full appreciation of the facts on the ground, and the means and resolve to move forward.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Finally back home. . .

Well, we've been on vacation for the past week. Of course, it had to be the most interesting week of Lambeth, but I've decided it was actually a good thing that I was on the road and not tied to my computer. We finally (after 14 years in California) made the trip up Highway 1 from San Luis Obispo to Monterey - a beautiful drive through Cambria, Hearst Castle, Big Sur, etc. The weather was great - Monterey was actually cold, which I understand is not what the rest of the country is experiencing. We hiked, went to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, took a whale watching boat ride and saw some humpback whales.

But, I was able to check the web on my cell phone from time to time - just to get the Internet headlines - it was too hard to read any actual postings, so I'm playing catch-up the rest of this week.

Some initial impressions so far include the underlying racism or arrogance (I still haven't decided which it is) of some of the revisionist bishops from The Episcopal Church in talking about and responding to bishops from other parts of the world. But I'll have more on that later. Right now we're still unpacking, washing clothes, going to the grocery store, etc., etc.

AnglicanTV: Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks

I have heard wonderful things about this presentation by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. What a delight to see that Kevin captured it for us all.

From AnglicanTV

Communion Partners could prove Anglican Communion’s undoing

From Anglican Mainstream, an analysis by David Virtue:

Buried deep in the Windsor Continuation report is this paragraph, overlooked by most, but of infinite importance, "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion."

This confirms VOL’s belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury IS in fact seeking compliant "Communion Partners" from the Global South in order to do an end run around the GAFCON Primates Council in an effort to isolate mainstream evangelical and Anglo-Catholics who number 40 million of the 55 million church-going Anglicans throughout the world.

VOL has learned that Rowan Williams is under a lot of pressure from an orthodox Church of England bishop to make this plan work. Williams reportedly said that if Jefferts Schori signs off on it, is a done deal. Jefferts Schori will only sign this document if the "Communion Partners" clause is part of the deal so she can sell it to her HoB who will not politely accept the tripartite moratoria.

Politics is everywhere.

GAFCON pilgrims should take note. Rowan Williams doesn’t like you. While he would like you back at the Lambeth table, it will only be on his terms, not yours. This is his show, not the Anglican Communion’s or The Episcopal Church’s. But beware, his sympathies and loyalties lie with Katharine Jefferts Schori and the rest of the liberal Anglican West, not with Peter Akinola and the true Global South. If "Communion Partners" is a done deal, then GAFCON leaders should know that what is in de facto a schism in the Anglican Communion is in fact de jure.

Read it all.

Cherie Wetzel and her Monday Lambeth report

From Cherie Wetzel at Anglicans United [boldface mine]:

The 5:00 press conference on the Third stage of the Windsor Continuation Group was preceded by an Episcopal News Service impromptu conference on the lawn outside “the Missing Link” building.

TEC bishops Catherine Roskam, Suffragan, New York and Kirk Smith, Arizona, spoke first about the theme of the day: the Bishop and Interfaith dialogue. Both noted that they have a new respect for the bishops here who live in multi-cultural and multi-faith worlds and really need to dialogue so that all may live peaceably together and get along. Both described their efforts at dialogue as much less serious business.

Moving on to the third session today from the Windsor Continuation Group, both said that they would prefer to see the statements made in a positive and much less negative wording. Bishop Smith said that affirming their relationships as bishops in a positive way would be more acceptable; because it sounds like if you don’t accept this thesis and/or the Covenant, you can’t be part of the group.

Bishop Roskam stated, “We agree on so much. Let what we agree on develop a covenant, not just the problems we don’t agree on. In ’98 at Lambeth, we invited the Communion to take seriously the Christianity of gay and lesbian people. This Lambeth has welcomed the LGTB (Lesbian, Gay Transgendered and bi-sexual) people.”. . .

Read it all.

The secret of Anglicanism

From Damian Thompson at the Telegraph:

If nothing else, Lambeth has produced the authoritative definition of modern Anglicanism. It comes from the Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby – in a Faithbook blog post, I'm proud to report.

"We have been a Church which has been held together by belief, as contained in the historic creeds, and not by agreeing to particular statements about that faith."

Discuss.

Read it all (and discuss).

From the other side: Jim Naughton at The Lead

From The Lead at the Episcopal Cafe [boldface mine]:

Be afraid: some of our bishops think the pastoral forum proposal has a head of steam, that it is what Rowan Williams wants and that he has established the credibility at this conference to get it. They don’t go as far as I am about to, but the implication of their thinking is that the Episcopal Church should prepare to distance itself in some way from the Anglican Communion, or accept some sort of reduced status so as not to a) implode; b) compromise one of the few things that makes us attractive to our rapidly secularizing culture; c) betray our consciences on the issue of full inclusion.

Be not afraid: others folks I have talked to say that we should be glad to have had a look at the Windsor Continuation Group’s work in process because it provides an opportunity to make our views known; that the fact that the recommendation for a pastoral forum won’t be voted on by this conference is a good thing; that the fact that the report will be presented to the Anglican Consultative Council for final action is also a good thing because the ACC is the most widely representative of the so-called instruments of union.

Our bishops will talk this over tomorrow at a provincial meeting. . .

Read it all. (But my favorite line is: "compromise one of the few things that makes us attractive to our rapidly secularizing culture" - what a gulf between us!)

Sarah Hey: Audio interview with Bishop Jack Iker

From Stand Firm, Sarah Hey interviews Bishop Iker:

I spoke with Bishop Iker after the hearing that covered the third report of the Windsor Continuation Group and he was gracious enough to give an audio interview.

He commented to me that there were a number of TEC bishops who spoke at the hearing who were quite distraught over the recommendations of the report. Bishop Andrus stood and said something like "I'm not going to lie to you, we have numerous same-sex blessings occurring in my diocese all the time, and have for years." Bishop Chane stood and commented that he had about 30 same-sex-partnered clergy in his diocese.

To hear the interview, go here.

Windsor Continuation Group: Captain Yips is not impressed

From Captain Yips Secret Journal:

. . . Waiting . . .

Update: It's out, and it doesn't sizzle, it fizzles. It goes further down the road of making border crossing the equivalent of the EO's LGBT obsessions, and it seems (at first reading) to intend to subject small church plants like mine, a community never part of the EO at all, to either some remote new commission, or eventually to the Diocese of Chicago. That won't fly barring a complete change of heart here. Granting the EO an inviolable and exclusive Anglican Franchise is a sure way to prevent reform. This won't work, and they know it won't work. More later, probably.

Read it all, and you can check out the Windsor Continuation Group report part 3 here.