House of Bishops/Deputies Items

For items copied from the HOBD listserve, permission to present them here has been granted. For items which are published on websites, even though they also appeared on the HOBD listserve, we did not feel that it was necessary to obtain permission.

New_PB

Concerning those who don't approve of our new PB,
and won't attend the festivities.

Two notes from the House of Bishops/Deputies list serve
(with permission, of course)

Despite it being a real struggle sometimes, I have done my dead level best to try and both respect and be patient with those in the Episcopal Church with whom I may have disagreements over a number of issues, including the election of our new Presiding Bishop. It's becoming even more of a difficult struggle after reading the comments of Bishop Steenson.

I don't have a problem with any of us reaching different conclusions about what "Scripture says." Lord knows we can all read it for ourselves and interpret what we think it says in different ways. Some see no role for women in leadership roles in the church, particularly ordained leadership roles. Yet I look into the Hebrew Scriptures and see a number of examples of women in roles that are clearly that of leadership. Esther is just one. We speak of the matriarchs of the church and sometimes we might even name them. I can't help but believe that they had more involvement than just helping Abraham end up with more progeny than there are grains of sand on a beach. And I suspect we forget that the Holy Writ was strongly influenced by a very patriarchal atmosphere that probably didn't think it could even risk brief mention of women much less the matriarchs and the roles they played. But let's get real. Contrary to what many of us menfolk may think, we don't do everything! The world runs rather well even when we are not in control of it. And for many of us, there were very strong women in our lives who taught us how to be strong while maintaining the gentleness that would be more productive than the fierceness we might have been more prone toward.

We also seem to forget how our Lord Jesus Christ interacted with the women of his day, including those who followed Him in ministry. Even though rarely mentioned by name, women were part of that ministry. We all know that. We all know that it was the women who stayed until Jesus breathed His last and it was the women who were at the tomb first and who first saw the Risen Lord. There should be a message in there for us somewhere if we have hearts and minds open enough to receive it. And then there are those pesky little passages that speak of the women of influence who seemed to be helping finance Jesus' ministry. There isn't any mention of their husbands being the source of their wealth. Seems it would be rather difficult for most women except those in real positions of leadership to possess the type of wealth that could help finance a ministry. (Yes I realize some of it could have been inherited from their dead husbands or fathers, but that isn't the point is it?)

As often as I have looked for it, I still haven't seen anything where Jesus said women were not to be leaders in the church....or even priests and bishops for that matter. (Of course Paul wasn't all that hot about the notion, but then he had all sorts of other issues anyway.) If someone knows of a passage traceable to Jesus that clearly states women are not to be in roles of leadership, please point me in that direction. Considering the fact that a woman caused Him to repent of his callousness toward Gentiles and a woman washed his feet with her tears, dried them with her hair and anointed Him with perfume, it doesn't appear He really had a problem with women in leadership or any other role.

So why then does Bishop Steenson ( as well as Bishop Iker and a few others) have such a burr under his saddle about this? Is it a smoke screen for some other issue? Perhaps. Is he doing what he thinks folks want him to do whether believing it or not? Again, perhaps.

On the other hand I have another theory behind all of this huffing and puffing and posturing. I see a bunch of little boys who never grew up. They think they are still in a school yard where they can bully others into thinking and acting like they think and act just because they are men/boys....but it's not really working now is it? I see a bunch of little boys who hated the idea that they ran to their mothers for comfort when the world got too rough for them....but now they can't do that because someone might see them as less than "manly."

To these little boys I simply say: First of all, grow up and act like men. Stop your posturing and foot stomping and pouting and learn to play well with others. And second, remember that an important part of your role as bishops is that of pastor. A pastor has compassion and understanding. A pastor is empathetic to others who are in pain or need. A pastor is a source of strength to those who need it.

If you don't know or remember how to be a pastor, try learning from some of the best: The women in our church, particularly the ordained women. They have a lot of experience in this arena. Whether it is because it is part of their innate abilities or whether it is because we forced them into such roles centuries ago, I have no idea. I just know that they can be a real solid and steady source of strength and don't seem to mind sharing it.

Of course any who wish are certainly free to keep posturing and pouting, snorting and stomping all they like. I just hope they understand that many of us only lose more respect when we have to witness such behaviour. Maybe it's because many of us also see lots of work in the vineyards of God that needs to be done and we would rather be doing that than watching tantrums. Aren't we better off working in the vineyards together than fighting each other? I'm always reminded of the words of the now deceased Rt. Rev'd Bill Stough: "If we really believe what we profess, we had better learn to get along with each other because we will indeed be spending eternity together." For some of us that would be a welcomed dream come true, but for others, I suspect it could be their worse nightmare.

I will definitely be at the investiture of ++KJS....wouldn't miss it for the world.

Bruce Garner, Exec. Council

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm completely in agreement with Liz+ and Bruce Garner among others. Long ago I gave up worrying about the politics of the Presiding Bishop so long as he was faithful to the Church and served with humility and honesty. There's nothing I know about +Katharine that suggests her views are much different from ++Frank. Both seem genuinely orthodox in their theology, and both have reaffirmed time and again their the same faith that we all do.

It seems hypocritical to plead for love on the one hand and then avoid the family reunion because he might not like everyone there. Those who won't attend an investiture are in the same mold as those who won't share communion. It's sad, it's un-Christian, and it's certainly not Anglican either.

The mean-spiritedness seems to know no end. It seems that ++Akinola and his allies have already split the WWAC. What I don't understand is how the American parishes who have so quickly flown into arms of African prelates are going to enjoy being dictated to by their bishops, in a system where they have absolutely no say.

My prayers will be with you all next weekend. It's a wonderful adventure we are embarking on with +Katharine. I'm glad to be in it with all of you.

Peace,

Tom Fitzhugh
L7, Texas

General Convention 2006: a few memoirs...

Over the Hill Howard. Minnesota C1 "03.

Here is what my nearly five year old grandson, Will, said when told by my wife of today's vote on a moratorium. She told him that the convention acted to say that not everyone could potentially become a bishop. He said, without hesitating, "That's not right. God should make that decision." I agree with Will. I still believe that the Holy Spirit guides the councils of the Church in such matters.

* * * * * * * * * *

Rev. John Perry: AVM Booth-sitter & General Observer

Finally, I am very, very glad that Albany Via Media sent Father John Sorenson and myself to General Convention. I discovered that we in the Via Media groups have many, many friends and supporters in the wider church. I wish I could pass on to you all the warm handshakes and hugs and kind words we received. And, there are more folks in the wider church who now know about us. I believe that we have an impact on the life of the church -- and on the course of events in the church.

Read more: the rest of this letter, and more letters from GC 2006

* * * * * * * * * *

Melaia McKinley. Oregon L4, 2006

It's been ten days.

The press has enjoyed the ride and written about the two "rating" issues. The picketers have chosen greener pastures, leaving us in "peace". The bags are packed full of paper we may never look at again. Another convention has moved into what we claimed sacred for ten days.

Ten days... it felt like ten minutes as the days blurred together. I don't remember which day I was pleasantly surprised to find myself standing next to Brad Drell for a moment just long enough for an introduction. I don't remember which day it was that Nigel Renton made the journey to the front center table to shake my hand and introduce himself. I had the pleasure of serving with eight wonderful people on my subcommittee, five times that many on the larger committee including our own Elizabeth Kaeton. Although I found myself at spiritual saturation after only four days with my conversation table during Eucharists, I was happily greeted each time I saw them in the halls.

Although the Verbosians did not reconvene, I was blessed to have met several of you and will remember your faces as we continue to share this journey. I am addicted to the process, and though there is no guarantee of being elected to be a deputy again, I will throw my hat into the ring again and hope to see you all in three years.

I've been asked several times, "Was it what you expected?" or "What do you think?" There are so many things to say, but I won't dump it all here... some highlights:

- A daily cry is cleansing.
- Stewardship and practicality don't necessarily go hand in hand.
- No matter how much better you think you can say it, no one will hear you if someone else just made the same point.
- Layer clothing.
- I am no longer a spring chicken.
- Coffee is not a sufficient breakfast or lunch.
- It's okay to stop and pray.
- Home is where your bed is.
- Only pack red feather boa if you plan to wear it.
- Take more pictures.
- Whatever you imagine it might be, it won't be. Whatever you imagine it can't be, it is.
- Appreciate the small moments, soak up the big moments and breathe in between.
- It's okay to be wrong... for me, too.
- The Spirit is there when you least expect a spiritual experience.

Safe journey home to all who were here, see you in Anaheim!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ann Fontaine c1, Wyoming

to Wyoming Episcopalians ---

I woke up every hour during the night following the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as our new PB - thinking to myself - did that really happen? Reports from the House of Bishops and their morning of electing spoke of how at the moment of election - +Katharine looked stunned, stood, sat, stood - then +Barbara Harris (the first woman to become a bishop) "flew" to her side, embraced her, both began to cry - Barbara saying - I never thought I would see this day, immediately all the women who are bishops surrounded them, hugging and then joined by the men who are bishops - rejoicing. All believe that she has the skills, the poise, the breadth of knowledge and ability to manage that are needed in a PB. Her ability to listen, listen, listen to all and especially those who have differing opinions is extraordinary. For Wyoming - she is a person of the West - lived in Oregon for much of her life and in Nevada since her election as bishop there. She knows the small rural church and the challenges of distance that we face.

You may add her to your Sunday prayers as "for Frank, our presiding bishop, and for Katharine, our presiding bishop-elect" - Frank and his wife Phoebe will need our prayers as they begin their transition to their new stage of the journey, and Katharine and her husband Dick will need prayers for the move to NY, for continued grace under fire, and for safety (the depressing fact of life as the first woman to be elected PB).

Other happenings - we are still creeping along - although we are finally into the Windsor Report response - we did pass a resolution regretting the strain people feel as a result of our actions in 2003 and commit to seek greater relationship in the future. We are in the midst of the discussion of whether or not to have a moratorium on electing openly gay bishops (note the openly - continued closeting seems to be okay) and stop developing rites for blessing. Personally, I hope we do not offer to sacrifice our gay brothers and lesbian sisters in appeasement when those who are not gay or lesbian will have no sacrifice. I am always wary of our quickness to offer others for sacrifice. The youth of the convention have spoken with one mind that if this passes, those who only yesterday, after the PB election, looked to us with hope, will sadly see that we do not mean our invitation - "the Episcopal Church welcomes you."

ANN

"Life is hard: jam is easy"
http://thingstoeat.blogspot.com/

* * * * * * * * * *

Want to see pictures ? More letters? More news of the convention. More news on our News Page

Editor's note: we always get permission before presenting material copied from the HoB/D listerve.

Alaska_voteing_Becky_Snow

Becky Snow
Alaska

Comments on voting procedures in the Diocese of Alaska. That diocese is perhaps unique by virtue of it's enormous size. You might be interested in the last couple of paragraphs concerning how they vote in their diocesan conventions. Editor.

I am a bit behind on reading this list, but want to respond to two comments in the discussion of voting at diocesan conventions.

Richard Brewer wrote:

Is this canonically legal in the Episcopal Church? A congregation can disenfrancise a clergy person from "taking part in the councils of the church"?

I would submit that the quote (taken from the ordination service) does not create a right for a priest (because the same language is not in the ordination service for a deacon) to take up any given position in the councils of the church. No one assumes every priest is entitled to serve on a Standing Committee or Diocesan Council or to be a Deputy to General Convention or serve on any CCAB of diocese or TEC. The assumption that ordination to the priesthood entitles one to a vote at a diocesan convention is a remnant of the clericalism we inherited with the English way of doing church. Why should every ordained person have seat, voice and vote in a convention when every other member does not? In fact the absence of that language in the ordination service created a barrier to election of deacons as deputies to General Convention until the end of the 20th century.

Regarding the diocesan convention in Alaska, my friend Robert Thomas wrote:

The Diocese of Alaska allows only the priest in charge of a congregation to have vote at Diocesan Convention. No other clergy regardless of status of active/retired/inactive or of employment are empowered to vote. Although other clergy may be elected to represent a parish as part of the "lay" delegation.

I would have explained the situation this way:

In Alaska all members of the church are represented through their congregations, believing that as Christians we live in and through community. Each congregation is represented by its rector or member of the clergy in charge and one other delegate for each 100, or fraction thereof, members. Congregations which have no rector or member of the clergy in charge, or where that person cannot attend for whatever reason, are entitled to an additional elected representative. We have no vote by orders at Convention except for elections of bishops. Thus we have congregational delegations, not "clergy" delegations and "lay" delegations. Every congregation must pay a registration fee for each of its delegates, including a rector etc., which goes into a pool to defray the expense of everyone's travel and the costs of convention (at our conventions we typically stay with and are fed by members of the host congregations).

In assessing this arrangement it is important to know that even now about half of our congregations are without resident clergy and even among the congregations that have resident clergy many of them were ordained under the former Canon 9 (most recently) which prohibited such a person from being a priest in charge. In addition, if we had the more usual provision that gives all priests at least vote in convention, the geography of our state and the ensuing cost of traveling to our conventions, which occur all over the state, would give an inappropriate advantage to those non-parochial clergy who live in urban areas and/or earn good wages doing something other than church work and can afford to take off 4 days for a convention, in comparison with those in rural areas who often live a subsistence lifestyle and cannot afford in many ways the time to go to convention. Learning from the experience of other dioceses that have lopsided clergy presence at their conventions, we chose to seek a more balanced approach. However, as Father Thomas demonstrates, it has been hard, especially for clergy coming from Outside to break out of the mindset of clergy "disenfranchisement" and "taking up a 'lay' seat." I have observed over 3 decades of living with this system that clergy from the rural congregations have no problem getting elected to the conventions at which we are electing a bishop.

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:52:59 -0800
From: Nigel Taber-Hamilton <rectorhome@whidbey.com>
Subject: RE: [HoB/D] Stephen Bates of The Guardian on some Anglican African Archbishops.

When V. Gene Robinson went into treatment for alcoholism it was a moment that healing begin. Had some chosen to mention in public his previous alcoholic behavior - before any treatment was begun, or even mentioned - I suspect that embarrassed silence might have been one response for those who support him.

It is only natural that those who believed that they shared a measure of common vision with Archbishop Akinola are keeping their heads - and voices - down - out of disappointment, embarrassment and - I imagine - some measure of anger at his behavior.

And, I am sure, they are praying for his healing. My sympathies are with those who must now feel some measure of disillusionment with the Archbishop of Nigeria.

I believe we have to have this perspective if we expect to make any progress together in TEC. We are going to have to assume that each is operating out of a position of integrity and with good intentions.

My sympathies are also with those who are on the receiving end of the Archbishop's ill- onsidered and un-Christian comments in support of the Nigerian Government's anti-gay legislation, and all those Muslims and Christians who will suffer and die as a result of his stirring of the ethnic pot.

About the ABofC - as much as I feel he is in that classic "devil and deep blue sea" place I have to agree - sadly - with Jim and Donald Lowery. It is not as if others are attributing motives to Archbishop Akinola - his own words convict him.

Surely it is now appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue a call for him to repent. I mean this in all sincerity, and am not trying to make any comparisons with the WR. The Archbishop of Nigeria is - at the least - bringing the Communion into disrepute by his behavior and actions.

Are you certain that you wish to be identified with the way Archbishop Akinola expresses his way of following Jesus Christ?

When I do site visits in various grant making processes, I generally get to ask the applicants the difficult or hard questions about why they are asking for funding, what they plan to do with it if they get it and how they are going to show what they accomplished. I am gentle, polite, but probing and direct with such questions. Those are the questions whose answers can often predict the success or failure of an endeavor.

Bishops Stanton, Duncan, Salmon, Iker, Howe et al, as well as David Anderson, Ellis Brust, et al: Are you certain that you wish to be identified with the way Archbishop Akinola expresses his way of following Jesus Christ? Is that the model you want to use to "win the world to Christ?" Is ++Peter's methodology one of which you can be proud as a Christian? It's certainly one thing to differ in interpretation about Scripture.....we've all been living with that scenario for a few centuries now. It's quite another to endorse and uphold the actions of one who claims to follow Jesus but who also participates (whether actively or tacitly) in the torture and murder of those who - for whatever reason - he does not agree.

I'm inclined toward a position I have stated before, namely that this entire enterprise has never been about human sexuality but about power and control. As the evidence continues to unfold, that seems more and more true every day. Allying oneself with a corrupt government is pretty much an indication that power and control are the issues.

It's ironically amusing: Our brothers in the global South seem to have honed their skills at one western trait to the max: corruption and how to make the most of it before you get caught.

The questions are hard.....will I hear any answers? Perhaps some plan just got out of hand and now no one knows how to get it back under control???

The above is a note from the HoB/D listerve.
We have copied it with permission. Mar 13 2006 HOBD

Dear Friends:

It is the explicit and emphatic message of my Bishop, The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, that he and the other leaders of the AAC are demanding that the General Convention, 2006 repent and permanently stop ordaining practicing homosexuals and blessing same- ex unions. If the General Convention does not fulfill these expectations, based on their understanding the Windsor Report, then June 2006 will bring separation or schism. He explained to us that by not repenting and reversing its previous actions the Episcopal Church will have demonstrated that it has departed/walked away from the Anglican Communion and that they, the AAC Network, will be declared the only true and faithful Anglican Church in North America.

Given his sincere and passionate conviction that homosexuality is a sin and that the actions of General Convention, 2003 directly violate Holy Scripture, these plans make perfect sense. As a member of the AAC board, Bp. Schofield has been clear from the beginning that he expects the Episcopal Church to either reverse its actions or it will be replaced. The purpose of the Network is to provide that new church organization. He takes great pains to state that he has not changed and that the AAC is maintaining the faith and practice of the Episcopal Church (he once spoke of returning to the 1950s) and of the historic Church. He is emphatic that it is the General Convention that will have walked away, rather than the AAC. Of course, there are issues of property and assets caught up in this explanation, but there is also a consistent theological position. In August of 2003 when asked by a member of the diocese who was in anguish because of the action of General Convention whether we could take the name Episcopal off our church signs he answer that for legal and financial reasons we cannot yet remove it.

It is a little too early to know whether this plan will be completed in the timeframe the AAC leaders are expecting, i.e. June, 2006, but in my perception events from before Plano through the South-South Conference and beyond the current weekend, are designed to achieve this goal. They are being consistently effective in pursuing their goals.

On September 17 of this year when I heard Bp. Schofield state the above timetable, I gave up hope of keeping my diocese intact. Our local Via Media USA group, called Remain Episcopal, is determined to maintain an Episcopal Diocese in our geographic area under the authority of General Convention. We might be without our current bishop or standing committee or diocesan council, but with God's grace we will continue and survive and thrive.

I no longer have hope of my bishop remaining united with General Convention, because I agree with him that the Convention of 2006 is not likely to backtrack and renounce the actions and position taken in 2003. Perhaps I will be surprised. However, I am personally proud of what we did in 2003 and I firmly believe it is consistent with the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Further, I understand our approval of the election of Bp. Robinson to be our moral stand taken against promiscuity.

The title of HOPE in this past weekend's AAC conference is about the hope they have of finding a place as a separate province recognized by many in the Anglican Communion. It is the hope of NOT being associated with a Church that, in their opinion, has violated God's Word. Given their deep convictions and having heard the pain that the action of General Convention, 2003, has caused some, I agree that they need to separate.

In my opinion we who are determined to remain in the Episcopal Church must figure out how to limit our loss, especially for those of us whose entire diocesan leadership is preparing to leave our Church organization. We in the Episcopal Church have always represented a broad range of opinions. My parish is almost equally divided between conservatives and liberals. With so much negative rhetoric we are in danger of giving away the conservative half of our identity to a small group for whom schism is the best answer. We need to use language that includes conservatives who are not radicalized toward leaving. We need to understand and articulate ourselves as broad and inclusive of many people with differing opinions who respect and tolerate each other and--even--love each other because of our differences. Too much of the talk on this list serve defines us as either/or and that language pushes those who are more conservative or even in the middle to identify themselves with the group who will be leaving.

I also think it is counter productive to name members of the Network as schismatic. In my perspective, the Network was created by the AAC as a place for those who disagree with General Convention, 2003, to find association with others who think alike. Obviously, the AAC would like all members of the Network to walk away from General Convention together. About a year and half ago a lovely couple appeared in my parish. They were members of the neighboring Diocese of Northern California. However, they were unhappy with Bp. Lamb's vote for the approval of Gene Robinson's election. They had been made to feel less than Christian by more liberal members of their former congregation (liberals, please pay attention to this fact). They came to the Diocese of San Joaquin because of Bp. Schofield's reputation. They are members of the Network and solidly conservative. Ironically, they arrived at this parish, whose rector also voted to approve that election. They liked our liturgy and my Christ-centered preaching. They liked the warm welcome and the assurance that they are valued and their opinion respected. They chose to stay at St. John's, despite my vote. They continued to be very supportive of the Network and to stay connected with its webpage. However, when I explained that Bp. Schofield would choose separation/schism over remaining in the Episcopal Church with its present position, they were very displeased. They do not agree with schism, but they want to be respected and to have their opinion honored. So far, they have experienced that respect and honor and, God willing, when the split takes place they will choose to remain with us, in ECUSA. Please do not throw away everyone who in earnestness and conviction joined the Network only because they are troubled or disagree with the consecration of Bp. Robinson. I am hoping and praying that many might look at schism and choose the unity Christ has given us over division.

Let us acknowledge the fact that we are heading toward schism, let us continue to pray for God to avert this schism, even at this late hour with only seven months to go, let us recognize that if some leave ECUSA we will still be strong and healthy, and let's take appropriate actions to prepare ourselves, starting with talking as if we mean to be as inclusive as we believe the Gospel is calling us to be.

In Christ, Rick

The Rev. Rick Matters
St. John the Baptist Episcopal Church
1055 South Lower Sacramento Road
Lodi, CA 95242

Clergy alternate, 2003

Another troubling word here. I thought we were DISCUSSING viewpoints, not negotiating a contract or a settlement. In my professional life I spend a lot of time and energy moving people to a point of agreement to settle lawsuits, even when they (and I, as their attorney) do not feel they have any liability. In that sense negotiation is about putting an end to a dispute.

I don't see GC as ending disputes, and I don't see TEC as a place to settle disputes. Certainly we do have important agreements, and I think the Creeds succinctly state their parameters. But beyond that we have freedom to think, to discuss, and to agree to love one another without forcing agreement or outlawing those who are different from us. One of the endearing charms of the Anglican Communion has been its tolerance for variety in expression. We have everything from renewal music to Mozart. Some use incense, and some wear only cassocks. We are free to form our own worshipping communities with our preferred styles so long as we adhere to the main points.

It occurs to me that nearly everyone who has been writing on this Board, if not known to one another, could sit in adjacent pews and thoroughly enjoy a Eucharist following Rite I or Rite II. Yes, there are disagreements - but I have all kinds of disagreements with people with whom I worship. That doesn't keep me from going to church on Sunday - it's not about ME -- and it doesn't keep me from hugging them or shaking their hand during the peace.

A few years ago when I was on the vestry a bitter dispute arose within the parish, and I was an outspoken advocate for one of the sides. Some influential parishioners on the other side used absolutely unspeakable tactics to discredit me personally and our viewpoint. Like most such disputes, this one ultimately faded, but the feelings lingered. Then one Sunday I was serving as Lay Eucharistic Minister and who was kneeling before me to receive the cup but the chief strategist for "the other side." As I extended the Cup and said the words, I was struck by our common need to lay aside that dispute and focus on building up the church.

Years later we have almost an entirely new clerical staff and many in the congregation know nothing about the anger and division we experienced a decade ago. I'm VERY glad for that, because it would be an obstacle to our work together and would impair our sense of community. We have all forgiven one another and moved on.

I'm not asking people here to abandon their viewpoints. I'm asking folks to LISTEN. That's one important thing the Windsor Report asked -- for us to actually try to hear one another. Maybe the way forward is best done in a roundabout way - detouring from the nerve endings and high peaks and deep valleys to the broad pastures and meadows. Maybe we can't make the same time we would if we were completely merged in a convoy on the interstate. But here and there I've read some really intriguing notes here and invitations to talk and to listen.

This isn't, in my view, a time for negotiation -- we aren't trying to settle anything, at least not yet. There is no overarching resolution or single course of action I can see that would satisfy those at either end of the spectrum. So let's keep talking, listening, forgiving, praying, and most of all, celebrating what we have and cherish in common.

Tom Fitzhugh
Lay Alternate, Texas

I invite everyone's attention to the fact that Executive Council passed a
resolution calling for a church-wide "conversation on marriage." The
Standing Committee on National Concerns was given the job of assembling an
annotated bibliography on a wide variety of aspects of marriage -- biblical,
theological, economic, social policy, legal, etc. -- and placing it on the
web site. The Rev. Barbara Cheney was given the assignment, and she has
been hard at work on it.

The resolution also asked (1) that time be set aside at GC 2006 for a forum
on this subject and (2) that dioceses, in anticipation of same, organize
such conversations locally. (My own diocese, Washington, is going forward
with this.)

The idea is not to produce resolutions or canonical changes or anything of
that sort. It is simply to make people better acquainted with this
subject, which is so important to the Church but which is typically
discussed in the media in highly polemical terms. The goal is
understanding.

I hope other dioceses engage this mission. It just could be very
worthwhile.

John Vanderstar
L3 Washington 2006
Member of Exceutive Council

The following appeared on the HOB/D listserve.
It was copied from Every Voice Network
It's a little long, but give it a try anyway...

An Ontological Argument
Date Monday, April 25 @ 14:07:56
The Rev. Susan Russell

Part of a “titanic temper tantrum” is how I described the recently “leaked” letter -- ostensibly signed by eighteen ECUSA bishops -- seeking a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury to mediate what they name as “irreconcilable differences” in the American Episcopal Church. The basis for this meeting is what they consider to be “contradictory, mutually exclusive positions regarding essential matters of faith and practice dividing our Church and threatening the unity and mission of the Anglican Communion.”

“Essential matters of faith and practice?” Which essential matters would those be? The saving grace of God in Christ Jesus? The historic creeds? Apostolic succession? Baptism? Eucharistic Theology? The answer is “none of the above.” Rather, the matters that challenge us in these early days of the 21st century have become focused on our divergent perspectives on human sexuality; focused on the fact that those divergent perspectives have led some in the Anglican Communion to actions they consider faithful that others in the Anglican Communion consider incomprehensible. While acknowledging that those differences are very real – and very challenging – I have yet to be convinced that they stretch to the level of “essential matters of faith and practice” in any historic sense. Rather, it seems to me that the essential matter at hand is not sexuality but baptism – and the essential question on the table is, “Will this be a church where all of the baptized are fully included in the Body of Christ or not?”

It also seems to me that whatever “threat to the unity and mission of the Anglican Communion” we are currently experiencing must be firmly laid at the feet of the committed percentage of the American conservative fringe whose criteria for being included is being agreed with. Finding that they have been repeatedly disagreed with by the duly selected representative voice of the Episcopal Church on this baptismal question their quest has shifted to orchestrating an “end run” on the historic polity of the Episcopal Church – successfully escalating an ongoing family fight into an international schism. To further that end, in the months since General Convention 2003 every time there has been any hope of reconciliation, whiff of compromise or effort to seek the classical via media they have skillfully upped the ante, leading us to this seeming impasse on this decades old disagreement du jour.

For if we are going to be honest about our differences – about this “impaired communion” – then we must trace them not to 2003 and the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire but to 1974 and the ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven. If the criteria for impaired communion are our differences on who among the baptized may exercise ordained ministry – on whether or not the orders of all our bishops will be received throughout all of the Communion -- then our communion has been impaired for over thirty years – indeed, we are not in agreement on that yet within our own American Episcopal Church! I remember well my experience at General Convention 1994 in Indianapolis when ECUSA bishop, Bill Wantland, explained to me that I had tremendous gifts for ministry but could never “be” a priest because I was “ontologically incapable of being an efficacious bearer of a sacramental presence.”

It was a very clarifying moment.

According to Bishop Wantland, the very essence of my being – my “ontology” as a woman – prohibited me from exercising sacramental ministry. And yet, we have managed to muddle along, he and I, in the same church – impaired communion and all – for lo these thirty-something years. What has changed? Why is THIS issue – the fuller inclusion and gay and lesbian people into the mission and ministry of the church – THE issue that will split the church when we have managed to work through so many others in the past? We have for decades lived in communion with those who differ on the role of women in ordained ministry in spite of those differences. Why has the ordination of an openly gay bishop – the blessing of gay unions -- become the “defining issue of orthodoxy?”

I actually got to ask that question of David Anderson (president of the American Anglican Council) just a few months before GC2003. And like my 1994 conversation with Bill Wantland it was another clarifying moment.

David was a clergy colleague of mine in Los Angeles for many years. We agreed about a few things and disagreed about more but were nevertheless “in communion” with each other. We ate lunch together once a month for a year with other clergy colleagues reading and discussing the catechism together as part of a dialogue and reconciliation effort by our bishop. We ran into each other at early morning “Mananitas” services for the Cursillo community to which we both belonged. Heck, I sang in a praise band that was part of the prayer team in David’s hotel suite the night before the episcopal election in the Diocese of Pittsburg when David was on the ballot. Yes, we were always at opposing microphones when debates happened on diocesan convention floor, but at one time it seemed that the essentials of the beliefs we held in common were more important than the very real differences that sometimes kept us apart.

Until 2003. A few months before Minneapolis and GC2003 we were both part of a pre-convention meeting between AAC and Integrity “core leadership.” After a long discussion I finally said to David, “We’ve been at this for decades, you and I, agreeing to disagree about any number of things. Help me understand why THIS issue is the one that you believe will finally split the church – why is this disagreement one we cannot overcome?”

And David said to me, “Because genital activity is so important to God that God has drawn a fence around it – and within that fence is only a man and a woman within the sanctity of marriage. Anything outside the fence is not subject to blessing and for the church to do so is to unravel the very fabric of the faith.”

Excuse me? If I heard David right – and in checking with my colleague in the room at the time I am assured that I did – the essential matter … the thing that matters MOST to God … is “genital activity?” I’ve got first year EFM students who could make compelling rebuttal to that contention – along with the Old and New Testaments, the received tradition and “reason” by any reasonable definition.

Is that the only argument David has to offer? Of course not – but it was clarifying to me that for the Reverend Canon David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, it was a defining one. It was clarifying to me because it was a window into just how far beyond the bounds of historical Anglicanism this small band of conservative reactionaries are willing to go in their quest to turn the Episcopal Church into something neither Hooker nor Seabury would recognize and my sainted Aunt Gretchen – who died with a “Save the 1928 Prayer Book” bumper sticker on her car – would find shocking.

And it has led me to conclude, in the weeks and months since that meeting, that what we are seeing play out around us has less to do with the essentials of the faith than it does with an exit strategy – an exit strategy devised by those who have determined to split this church rather than continue to live in communion with those with whom they disagree. It is a strategy under-girded by a virulent absolutism that seems to justify any means toward the end of “preserving orthodoxy” and is, in fact, working to destroy the unity of the church while placing the blame for the break up with those of us who have repeatedly committed to STAY in communion with those with whom we disagree.

A prime example is the current attack on the Bishop of Connecticut -- the “exhibit du jour” in a long line of scenarios where a vocal minority have intentionally painted themselves into a corner by active defiance of established Episcopal polity – all justified, of course, because they alone are privy to “The Clear Truth” – and then cry “victim” when their bishop acts like one.

Which leads me to my own “ontological argument” and it is this: there is an essential difference between feeling excluded because you are not agreed with and BEING excluded because of who you are. The current “persecution of the orthodox” in so-called “liberal dioceses” is nothing more than the self-fulfilling prophecy of the spoiled, entitled childish behavior of those pitching a fit after being told they must learn how to work and play well with others.

The Gospel for Easter 5 tells us that in our Father’s house there are many mansions. St. Paul tells us that essential to the Body of Christ are its many members. And our historic tradition as Anglicans tells us that when we live into the true via media we CAN hold in tension perspectives that others find “mutually exclusive” (catholic and protestant come to mind!) It is long past time to leave the tantrum throwers to their kicking and screaming -- just like I did to my own little darlings when they tried the “my-life-is-over-if-you-don’t-buy-me-the-Cocoa-Puffs-fit” in the cereal aisle. Sometimes, no matter how you yearn to reason them out of their tantrum, you just have to keep the shopping cart moving. And I believe we have reached that point in this ecclesial tantrum that is threatening to consume us.

It is time for the church to move on – to GET on with the work of the church: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, liberating the captive and proclaiming the Good News of God in Christ Jesus available to ALL! Those are the “essential matters of faith and practice” that should be consuming our energies in this Anglican Communion – in this Episcopal Church. And so may God give us the grace to get back to this work we have been given to do – this Gospel we have been charged with proclaiming – praying all the while that the tantrum will end and we might find unity in the places we can agree and the grace to disagree agreeably in the places we cannot.

A life-long Episcopalian, Susan is currently on staff at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena where she is the Senior Associate for Education and Communication. Additionally, she serves as Executive Director of Claiming the Blessing – a national collaborative ministry focused on the full inclusion of the GLBT baptized into the Episcopal Church. A California native, her family includes her partner Louise, two sons (ages 20 and 23) two dogs and three cats. Susan also serves as Community Manager for the Every Voice Network and is the President of Integrity USA. She is an ENFJ, a second soprano and a second-generation Los Angeles Dodger fan.

I have participated in this online conversation for the past few years while I served Western New York as cathedral dean and deputy. It has occasionally been illuminating, sometimes boring, often contentious and perhaps constructive.

However, last summer, after ten years as dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, I retired, after realizing that the cathedral was wanting to "turn in" more than out to the city around it. So I decided to retire, after 30 years of active priesthood. It then seemed appropriate that I not stand for election as a deputy so I will not see you in Columbus.

The other day I realized that I now routinely delete every message on this listserve without even opening them. I recognize the names and can guess what each has to say, and I couldn't help concluding that it is time for me to sign off. In my retirement, I have returned to the practice of law, practicing immigration law in the Buffalo and Niagara Frontier area. As I spend my days in court and meeting with "aliens" who seek hope and safety in this country, I have found no tolerance for the inhouse fighting expressed on this list. It has become for me just simply tiring and not pertinent to what I am doing.

Fortunately the bishop has asked me to assist parishes in interim ministry and I will watch the future of our church with great interest. I also continue serving on the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice, and cherish that community of witness.

I will keep all of you in my prayers and hope that in the battle between purity and hospitality in our church - hospitality will prevail. I will be forever grateful that I was allowed to join in consenting to the election of my friend Gene Robinson as a bishop in the church of God, and still believe that in this matter I was on the side of the angels. It was also a great blessing to have been in the House of Deputies when we adopted the Called to Common Mission with Lutherans. God bless.

Allen W. Farabee
c2 Western New York

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Allen,

You will be missed by many of us when we are in Columbus next June -- especially by your Province II colleagues; but I suspect I speak for many when I wish you contentment when you practice your outreach ministry in a new arena. The current negative attitude towards immigrants desperately needs the ministry of a lawyer committed to outreach, another word for inclusion I think, and what we were about in Minneapolis in 2003.

Marge Christie
Newark L4

The following appeared on the HOB/D listserve.
It is copied here from Witness Magazine.

The House of Bishops: All for One and Some for Something
By William Swing
Thursday, April 21, 2005

In the Houston Airport after the last House of Bishops meeting, I had a brief chat with my long-time and dear friend Ed Salmon, the Bishop of South Carolina. Both of us earnestly hope that a day of candor will come in the House. Ed and I are on opposite sides of the gay-lesbian issues, but we agree that the Episcopal Church would be better served if bishops asked basic questions of each other and were accountable in telling the truth to each other.

He welcomed my first question, "What is the Network really about?" His answer: It is, first of all, anchored in the Episcopal Church. To paraphrase, he stated that it was an organized way for Episcopalians who disagree with the General Convention 2003 homosexual decisions to offer mutual support, to have their voices heard, and to stay in community with the Anglican Communion. That sounds reasonable. In a House of Bishops where over ninety percent of the conservative, liberal, and moderate diocesan bishops are in good standing with each other, perhaps it is tolerable to have a network of bishops who opt out. The body might be able to abide this fracture for a time.

Then we hurried off to airplanes before I could ask all of my questions and he could ask his. Someday before I retire I hope bishops of the House can be honest about our life together and apart. If we ever get around to telling the truth, I would like to know from "the Network bishops":

When I carry around these questions in my heart and don't speak up, I live with the assumption that the Episcopal Church is in deep denial. We stand quiet while forces within our body seem intent to destroy this body. Yes, most of the Anglican world is furious with us. That's not the point. We knew they would be furious. We knew also that many Episcopalians would find our stance to be intolerable. Good people would leave. But what we didn't count on was what seems to me to be the Grand Plan. Funded by silent, wealthy ideologues, the Grand Plan would produce a sexually pure, globally recognized alternative Episcopal Church with Robert Duncan as Presiding Bishop. A revolution of staggering significance appears to be unfolding in our midst led by hirelings who were put in office to be shepherds. In the past we could always count on loyalty among bishops. Today we can count on disloyalty to the Episcopal Church among a few bishops. Or so it seems. All the while we are mute and excruciatingly polite.

Perhaps there are good and honest answers which will prove my fears false and point out that I have maligned innocent bishops in my silent heart. In that case I would readily apologize. But in the meantime while no one is speaking to tell the truth, a lot of us are left only to sniff an aroma and surmise the source of the smell.

There is probably a volume of honest questions that the Network bishops have of me. Whatever those questions, I stand ready to respond. At the end of the day, I predict the Bishop of South Carolina and the Bishop of California will continue to be friends inside the Episcopal Church.

About love

Rev. Ruth Vann Lillian is the director of Communities of Faith for Full Inclusion, an interfaith organization. She is the daughter of Lillian Foscue Vann, former assistant city editor of the Birmingham Post- Herald, and former Birmingham Mayor David Vann. Read more about the interfaith group at home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-coffi .

I was sorting through old photographs the other day and found several of Mama with two young men.

One was tall and solemn with horn-rimmed glasses, and the other was shorter with a friendly grin. On the back I read, "Arch and Lloyd."

Mama had known them for many years. Every Christmas there was a card, and there had been occasional visits. However, it wasn't until my midadolescence that I turned to Mama with some amazement.

I do not recall either of my parents mentioning homosexuality prior to that conversation, but they had provided me with a powerful foundation upon which to build my beliefs and opinions.

During the civil rights movement, Mama worked as a journalist with the Birmingham Post-Herald (Lillian Foscue) and Daddy mediated to solve conflicts and repair the community. He instigated the pivotal change in Birmingham's government, and later served as both councilman and mayor. In fact, the name, "David Vann," became associated with good interracial relations.

They taught me that everyone is a child of God, and that prejudice and discrimination may be common human flaws, but they are neither noble nor moral qualities. Personal discomfort is irrelevant in the call to treat others justly and kindly.

Mama and Daddy believed that living out our Christian faith daily meant loving even when we do not understand, and respecting even when we disagree. It was not hard for me to apply these principles to my questions about sexual orientation.

The theoretical became personal in high school when I became close friends with Stephen. When he told me that some boys were harassing him, sometimes violently, because they assumed he was gay, I was furious. At first, he was too frightened to report the mistreatment, but an incident in which we were both threatened changed that.

Stephen was driving me home one day when a car tried to force us off the road, and then pulled in front to block us. A large guy got out, shaking an ax handle and shouting obscenities. I knew him instantly, and in my fury I snatched at the door handle, but Stephen grabbed my arm. He trembled, white-faced, and it occurred to me only then that we might be in real danger.

The bully came closer and then noticed me. Suddenly, he didn't look so sure of himself, and quickly he got back into the car. They drove off, and I convinced Stephen to return to school and report the incident. The boys were subsequently suspended and the harassment ceased.

Thus I was introduced to the fears, sadness and isolation experienced by nonheterosexuals, and the dangers they face. This experience helped to shape my pastoral ministry, and in every church I have served, someone has taken the risk to come out to me, seeking love and support, in addition to parents, siblings and friends who needed the comfort and guidance of their pastor.

I have known several same-sex couples over the years. I've been a guest in their homes, and they function in much the same fashion as straight couples. They plan their future and share hopes and dreams. They struggle over finances, jobs, children, parents and even the toothpaste tube.

Like half of heterosexual couples, some part over irreconcilable differences. Many stay together for years, like Arch and Lloyd. They love and support each other, struggle with and take care of each other, sometimes all the way to the grave. Surviving partners are just as widowed, as lonely and as worried as any heterosexual, but without the cultural and legal supports to help them through.

Regarding relationships between consenting adults, does anyone have the right to tell another whom they may love? Scriptural interpretations and cultural traditions aside, may anyone really give or withhold permission to love?

Moreover, when love is such a precious gift of which many are deprived, how could anyone try to take it away from two people who have found it together?

Arch and Lloyd, both gone now, made a home together for almost 50 years. How many couples are so blessed? What does it matter that they were both men? What difference does it really make?

Elizabeth wrote:

>>From where I sit, that's a flat out gross over-exaggeration of the current situation in The Episcopal Church. That's not to deny or belittle either the current tensions and unhappiness or the seriousness of the matter.<<

Elizabeth,

Not an attack, but a strong response -- there, in one sentence, is what separates many of us right now. You, and others like you, don't believe that TEC stands on the brink of being "un- anglicanized" [isn't that a great word?]. Brad, and others like him, believe we are on that very brink.

Elizabeth, I believe that you are wearing blinders! If you cannot see that much of the rest of the AC is pretty upset with the North American Churches, then I am not sure just exactly what would convince you.

Is it that you don't [won't] believe that even if they are this upset they won't do anything about it? Is it that even if they do something about it, you don't believe it will stick? Is it that you simply don't think it matters one way or another?

I don't get it. I'm not buying into the whole "Chicken Little" syndrome either, but I sure as hell can tell that a LOT of international Anglicans are pretty pissed off at us. And I sure as hell can tell that a LOT of Anglicans around the world, and even in our own Church, are trying to figure out how to do something about it -- and that something sure includes kicking us out of the AC.

So -- are you, and others like you, simply going to continue to wear blinders and refuse to see what is going on around you? Isn't that what's called denial?

Or, can we get together as Episcopalians and realize that we are indeed on a brink, and maybe it's time for us to figure out together what we can do to step back from the edge?

Now -- please read carefully -- I have NOT suggested that we abandon our glbt brothers and sisters. I am saying that it is time for us to take a very deep breath, slow down the rhetoric -- on both sides -- and take a very clear look at where we are. I believe that we are on the very edge. Let's not rush like lemmings over it.

What can we do to figure out a way to live together?

Patrick Ormos, C4-2006, N. IN.

In a message dated 4/21/2005 10:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
phicwc@juno.com writes:

Elizabeth, I believe that you are wearing blinders! If you cannot see that much of the rest of the AC is pretty upset with the North American Churches, then I am not sure just exactly what would convince you.

Excuse me, Patrick, but I guess I've got to ask, "Who is wearing the blinders?"

You correctly quote me as saying, "That's not to deny or belittle either the current tensions and unhappiness or the seriousness of the matter."

And then you ask me what it will take for me to see that "much of the rest of the AC is pretty upset with the North Amercian churches."

I see very clearly what is going on in this church of ours. It's a very serious situation - one that I lament of and pray for daily. I was around for the last "very serious situation" when women were ordained and the same hue and cry went up around the Anglican Communion.

People - entire churches - left The Episcopal Church. Then again, a generation or so before, people left The Episcopal Church over candlesticks and vestments. No joke.

Truth is, we've been a broken or impaired communion for many, many years. The current situation is getting lots more press and lots more attention from a media which seems only interested that - for whatever reason - this kind of "news" sells papers.

There are "spin doctors" to the left of us and "spin doctors" to the right (and, to finish the verse of that song, "here I am, stuck in the middle with you.")

This time, the "faithful opposition" is far more organized and very, very well funded. I do fear that some will walk away. I only hope they do that with integrity and not try to destroy or seriously maim the church they profess to love as they take their leave.

If that happens, it will be deeply, deeply regrettable. I believe it will break the Sacred Heart of Jesus whose one, consistent prayer was "that we all may be one." But, the church will survive. The Episcopal Church will go on and do great things to glorify the name of God. And, we'll all get to heaven. It has been promised.

I agree with Brad (fancy that!) - the sky is not falling, but we're in the midst of a serious thunderstorm and there's been some dangerous flooding in some areas. Other areas have been so spiritually parched and dry for so long that the rains are a welcome gift from God, bringing new life and new growth.

I'm asking if you can see that picture, too, Patrick. I'm asking us to stop our absolute mesmerization with what and how and who defines sin or brokenness or impairment or trouble in the church and get on with the work of the mission and evangelism of the church.

I believe some of us on this list are and have been trying to "figure out together what we can do to step back from the edge." I believe the Windsor Report attempted to do that. I believe the House of Bishops Statement of Covenant did just that.

We can disagree with the effectiveness of these two pieces of work, but the truth remains that there are those of us who are working very hard to figure out TOGETHER what we can do to get us through this turbulent time in our church.

How can you have been on this listserv for any length of time and not have seen that?

I'm also remembering the danger of moving too soon. In my dorm room, I had a poster with a quote from Dan Berrigan which said, "Don't just do something, stand there."

Those of us who are also faithful to the church and her mission are finding that one of the most difficult spiritual task of all.

Blessings,
the Rev'd Elizabeth Kaeton

The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928
973 635 8085

Don't forget to visit:

The Witness Magazine - online and in community
www.thewitness.org

St. Paul's Chatham
http://www.stpaulschatham.org/

Anglican Communion 101
Elizabeth Kaeton

To my surprise, many of you have asked me questions about the latest development in the Episcopal Church. This surprises me because - if I am to believe my adult children - only a tiny handful of people in the entire universe are interested in the church in general and the Episcopal Church in particular.

Some of you know that The Episcopal Church is a member of the Anglican Communion, but you don't know what that means, much less what it means to be suspended from it - 'effectively' or not. My staff has urged me to give you the basics - an "Anglican Communion 101" - so you'll have a better understanding. They also asked that I do this in 1,000 words or less. If the resurrection is counted as the first miracle of Easter, this would count as the second.

Primate

First, some terms: A Primate is the chief bishop of a national province in the Anglican Communion (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/index.cfm ). The Episcopal Church USA calls our Primate the "Presiding Bishop."

Windsor Report

The Windsor Report (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/index.cfm) was issued last October, the product of a worldwide commission charged with writing a response to the actions taken by the Episcopal Church in affirming the election of the Rt. Rev'd V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop Robinson is the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion - but not the only gay bishop. Not by a long shot.

The response to the Windsor Report came from a gathering of 35 of the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion who gathered together in Northern Ireland in February (never to accused of taking a 'junket') to discuss the recommendations of this Report.

Their response has become known as the Primates Communiqué (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/00/acns3948.cfm ).

In March, the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church responded to both the Windsor Report and the Primates Communiqué, which has become known as The Covenant Statement (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_60016_ENG_HTM.htm )

I'll do a little explanation of the Anglican Communion and finish with a brief interpretation of what it means for us in the pew.

Anglican Communion

When founded in the 16th century, the essential nature of Anglicanism was forged in the crucible of the Reformation. Queen Elizabeth I and other architects of our church like Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker, sought the via media, the "middle way" between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, maintaining its moderate and inclusive character in part by not making a lot of pronouncements about doctrine or setting many requirements for belief.

What we pray is what we believe

Rather, the guiding principle of Anglicanism is, and has been, "lex orandi, lex credendi," or "what we pray is what we believe." If, for example, you want to know our theology of marriage, you simply have to look in the book of Common Prayer and read that liturgy. So, too, with baptism or penitence or ordination.

While this is frustrating for those who like their religion writ large and spelled out clearly, the genius of Anglicanism is this: So long as we can worship together, say the historic creeds together, receive the Body and Blood of Christ together, we don't have to agree on every single jot and tittle of doctrine or practice. The peace of Christ will reign with us and among us - well, at least in theory.

Independent Provinces & the ABC

Likewise, the Anglican Communion consists of independent provinces, each of whom has its origins in the Church of England and worships according to a book whose origins can be traced by to the original 1549 Book of Common Prayer, adapted to local custom and culture. We pride ourselves on having "common prayer." (See "The Myth of Common Prayer. www.thewitness.org ).

There is no central governing authority as in the Roman Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is respected as "first among equals," but has no legislative power over any province but his own. Each province's governing structure is self-determined, and the structure of the Episcopal Church USA reflects the democratic principles that formed our nation. It is a representative government, in which the laity and the clergy have equal voices, and our bishops are elected by the people from among the clergy, not appointed by a monarch, or prince of the Church - as is the case in England and other places.

The Lambeth meeting

How does one know whether one is a member of the Anglican Communion? It's a very simple, very British method. One - or, rather one's bishop or Primate - is invited (every ten years!) - by the Archbishop of Canterbury to his home, Lambeth Palace, for a conference that has become known, simply, as "Lambeth." (It's a tad more complicated that this, but this is the essence of it.)

During this two-week assembly, bishops and primates from around the world gather at Canterbury, England, worshipping at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral established by St. Augustine in 597 AD., and hearing reports of how Christians around the world are living out their faith.

They also study together controversial issues of the day and "seek the mind of Christ" to come to some resolution on the matter. These resolutions become the standard of teaching - but not the doctrine - of the church. And, of course, these resolutions have no binding authority in our lives of faith. (The next Lambeth is scheduled in 2008. We'll know if we're still part of the communion if the invitation is in the mail.)

So what, you ask? So what does any of this mean for us? The first thing to know is that, while our actions in the summer of 2003 - after the triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church had affirmed Bishop Robinson's election and permitted his consecration to go forward - have caused severe distress in parts of the Anglican Communion, we have, in no way, been "suspended" - effectively or not.

Authority

We need to remember that no matter how many recommendations or statements that are made by the primates, they do not have the authority to suspend a member church from the Anglican Communion.

They may say, "We are not in communion with you," and that would be the case between those particular provinces. That has been effectively the situation regarding the ordination of women for the last 30 years.

Indeed, there remain three diocese in The Episcopal Church that continue to refuse to ordain women - in direct violation of our canons and, are effectively not in communion with provinces and diocese (our own and all around the world) that do welcome the ministry of ordained women as deacons, priests and bishops. (NB: England does not allow the consecration of women to the episcopate.)

I believe that, by our actions in the summer of 2003, we have, somewhat inadvertently and without malice of forethought, wandered into what Martin Smith calls "the crucifyingly obscure boundaries of our faith."

Anglicanism has always demanded a certain spiritual maturity - an ability to live in the tension of paradox and mystery, embracing the unconditional love of God and trying our best to live that out with authenticity and integrity.

This makes those of us who want our faith writ plain - in rules one through ten - very anxious and most unhappy. These folks earnestly believe the Episcopal Church has sinned and nothing less than "true repentance and amendment of life" will appease them.

Throw out TEC?

In other words, they want the ordination of Bishop Robinson declared null and void, the church to cease of blessing of same sex relationships, and require that no person of homosexual orientation be ordained in any capacity. If this does not happen, then these same folks want the Episcopal Church tossed out of (or, at least, uninvited from) the Anglican Communion.

And, of course, this won't happen. Essentially, nothing will really change for most folk in the pew at our church, or in our diocese, or in most places in the Anglican Communion. This is not because the issues are unimportant but, rather, because most places around the world have been dealing with issues of human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular for years.

It is my sincere hope that the recommendation of the Windsor Report, which was repeated in the Primates' Communique and the Bishops Covenant Statement, will be taken seriously and enacted: that conversation with God's LGBT people be encouraged, and that study and education about homosexuality be promoted.

What we need to do...

We need to be as gracious and as generous as we can possibly be, allowing time for our sisters and brothers in the so-called Developing Nations to have the opportunity to deal more deeply with these diverse (if not divisive) cultural issues which are relatively new and "foreign, Western" ideas and constructs to many of them.

As frustrating and difficult as it is, we need to extend that same generosity of spirit to those in the Episcopal Church who fan the flames of intolerance both here and abroad. Jesus taught us that his Way, his Truth and his Life are not well served by meeting intolerance with intolerance. Hate will not change hate. Only love can do that. And, the new commandment Jesus gave us is: "Love one another." This is the impossible vocation Jesus gave to us all in our baptism.

To say, "these are the times that try men's souls" is rather like creating a tempest in a teapot. It is not to say, however, that these are not seriously difficult times in our church. Most certainly, they are.

However, I do believe that, by God's grace, we will find a way to move forward. Together. Intact. But it will not be without struggle. Nothing of any importance ever is. I believe the Anglican Communion is a gift of God to the people of God. As such, it is our responsibility and deep joy, as good stewards, to do everything in our ability to care for this gift. I believe our Presiding Bishop is doing just that.

If this raises more questions than answers for you, please let me know. I am most pleased to organize an adult forum or teaching series for you. I love the church, the Body of Christ, and find Her endlessly fascinating. I'm deeply pleased to know that there are those of you who do, too.

Blessings,

(the Rev'd) Elizabeth Kaeton
C1 Diocese of Newark
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928
973 635 8085

''The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen.''' - Rev. Al Sharpton